Contract Law Case Study
Posted by admin as Sample papers
Contract Law Case Study Sample:
Speaking about the different views of Professor Sutton and Professor McLauchlan, I would like to note that although each of them had some interesting point, Professor Sutton appears to present the matters in a more concise and logical manner by noting that the Contractual Mistakes Act is a sadly misjudged piece of legislation whose difficulties are capable of being resolved by judicial interpretation. Professor Sutton spoke about the most common mistake in contract, being the subject matter of a contract and he presents the view that I agree with. He pointed out Solle vs. Butcher, a case related to the provisions of the tenancy protection legislation.
It was Sutton who noted that there is no way to ‘set aside contracts aside for mistake’. As he noted “an inevitable corollary is that the requirement for operative mistakes, that renders a contract void, are difficult to meet”.
I agree with Sutton that this Act certainly was useful because it would replace the technical law governing such contract lapses. It was a useful thing to give discretionary power to the courts simply because the existing common law (which New Zealand borrowed from England) is too unstable.
I indeed find it useful to focus on the matters of policy, and the Conlon vs. Ozolins illustrates that matter.
Still, I need to note that although, I am a fan of market economies, where the person’s wits should be instrumental in doing business, I also see the need for the Act that would help people who make mistakes and this is why I agree with the view of Sutton. This act will serve as a safety margin in the decision making process and would somewhat reduce the risks that arise when the two parties make a contract. As a matter of fact that given act does help those who personally make mistakes when signing the contract. Sutton illustrated several examples of misplacing a decimal point, taking the value at face value, or making a blunder over some legal description that in turn would cause many people to incur unexpected losses from signing such contracts. Sutton noted that the mistakes can be present in even the most sophisticated contracts, created by the top professionals in the contract law. The fact that the daily life of people in New Zealand is governed by contracts which sometimes can be faulty, makes us understand that there exists a need for a proper legal support against such mistakes that otherwise would not be corrected.
I agree with Sutton’s point that apparently some people would become too concerned with the contract security, yet that would certainly contribute to the reduced efficiency and thus also would increase their expenses.
In conclusion I would like to note that it is rather wise to introduce the act that would somehow oversee the dominant power of contracts as it is the fact in the British law and this is why I find the view of Sutton the most appealing. The main purposes of a contract is to properly do business, rather than to create a potential for wits and tricks as it was illustrated in Smith vs. Hughes, when one party knew about the contractual mistake of the other, yet would not agree to correct it, because it knew that the court would favor that very party. The Contractual Mistakes Act helps people engage in business more willingly and not be obsessed with the overinvestment in the contract to assure a mistake-proof nature.