contract law principles may state a general rule, very often, the law for the purposes of employment contracts may differ. The classical model of contractual relations outlined above works on the basis of freedom of contract. It assumes the contract arena is a level playing field on which all participants are equal in terms of bargaining power. But this is patently not the case. Many of the rules developed in the 20th century recognise that individual consumers do not have the same bargaining strength as a multinational company. The consumer requires protection, especially in the light of the widespread use by business of the ‘standard form’ contract. Some rules towards this end have been developed at common law but, to a large extent, common law development has been hindered by the conflict between the needs of consumers and the principle of freedom of contract espoused in the classical theory. Even in the field of purely commercial contracts, where the classical theory appears to have its strongest hold, there are exceptions. What must be appreciated is that traders operate on an international level and the ancient law merchant had started to develop before the 19th century classical theory took hold. In order to cater for the needs of the trading community, some of the classical rules were modified to take account of established trading practice. Thus, a number of the rules gathered together under the doctrine of consideration are modified to take account of practices established many

1995 ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Ewan McKendrick

This chapter examines the impact of a contract on third parties. It addresses two main questions: whether or not a third party can acquire any rights under the contract, and whether or not the contract can impose upon him obligations or liabilities. The general rule adopted by English law is that the contract creates rights and imposes obligations only between the parties to the contract: the third party thus neither acquires rights under the contract nor is he subject to liabilities. This general rule is known as the doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, however, provides a relatively simple mechanism by which contracting parties can confer upon a third party a right to enforce a term of their contract. The dominant philosophy that underpins the 1999 Act is one of freedom of contract and, this being the case, the success of the Act in practice will depend upon contracting parties themselves. The chapter examines the individual sections of the 1999 Act, the exceptions to the doctrine of privity that existed at common law and under various statutes prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which a third party can be subject to an obligation by a contract to which he is not a party.


Contract Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 929-1012
Author(s):  
Ewan McKendrick

This chapter examines the impact of a contract on third parties. It addresses two main questions: whether or not a third party can acquire any rights under the contract, and whether or not the contract can impose upon him obligations or liabilities. The general rule adopted by English law is that the contract creates rights and imposes obligations only between the parties to the contract: the third party thus neither acquires rights under the contract nor is he subject to liabilities. This general rule is known as the doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, however, provides a relatively simple mechanism by which contracting parties can confer upon a third party a right to enforce a term of their contract. The dominant philosophy that underpins the 1999 Act is one of freedom of contract and, this being the case, the success of the Act in practice will depend upon contracting parties themselves. The chapter examines the individual sections of the 1999 Act, the exceptions to the doctrine of privity that existed at common law and under various statutes prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which a third party can be subject to an obligation by a contract to which he is not a party.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
Jean Chrysostome Kanamugire

Specific performance is a primary remedy for breach of contract available for the aggrieved party. This order emphasises the performance of contractual obligations. Although the plaintiff can elect to claim specific performance from the defendant, the court has a discretion to grant or decline the order of specific performance. The discretion must be exercised judicially and does not confine on rigid rules. Courts decide each case according to its own facts and circumstances. Plaintiff has a right of election whether to claim specific performance from the defendant or damages for breach of contract. The defendant does not enjoy any choice in this matter. As a general rule, specific performance is not often awarded in the contract of services. However, recent developments have demonstrated that specific performance will usually be granted in employment contracts if there is equality of bargaining power among contracting parties and such order will not produce undue hardship to the defaulting party. Public policy generally favours the utmost freedom of contract and requires that parties should respect or honour their contractual obligations in commercial transactions. Public policy is rooted in the constitution and can sparingly be used to strike down contracts. Specific performance should not continue to be a primary remedy for breach of contract. Contracting parties should be allowed to resile from the contract and use damages as a remedy for breach of contract.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-219
Author(s):  
I.S. CHUPRUNOV

The paper provides analysis of the legal nature and the mechanism for exercise of the right of pre-emption (right of first refusal) in respect of execution of a contract taking as an example of right of first refusal to purchase a stake in a non-public corporation, and also examines the boundaries of parties’ autonomy and freedom of contract in this area. The author comes to the conclusion that the key elements of the construction of the right of pre-emption are the transformation powers that belong to the right holder. The author also demonstrates that, notwithstanding their dominance in Russian law, the views, which suggest that exercise of the right of pre-emption leads to “transfer of rights and obligations of a purchaser” (the translative theory), should be rejected. These views must be replaced with the constitutive theory, according to which exercise of the right of pre-emption results in a new contract between the right holder and the seller (as a general rule, on the same terms that were agreed between the seller and the purchaser).


Author(s):  
Lusina HO

This chapter examines the law on contract formation in Hong Kong which is closely modelled on the English common law but adapts the English solutions to the local context if and when required. The test for ascertaining the parties’ meeting of the minds is objective, the agreement (an offer with a matching acceptance) must be certain, complete, and made with the intention to create legal relations—the latter being presumed to be present in a commercial context and absent in a familial or social context. Offers are freely revocable although the reliance of the offeree is protected in exceptional circumstances. Acceptances become effective as soon as they are dispatched. In the ‘battle of forms’ scenario, the Hong Kong courts follow the traditional ‘last-shot’ rule. There is no general duty to negotiate in good faith, and even agreements to negotiate in good faith are normally unenforceable for lack of certainty. As a general rule, contracts can be validly made without adhering to any formal requirement. Online contracts will normally be valid and enforceable; the formation of such contracts is governed by common law as supplemented by legislation.


Author(s):  
Melvin A. Eisenberg
Keyword(s):  

Chapter 57 concerns no-oral-modification (n.o.m.) clauses. Often a written contract includes a provision that the contract cannot be modified except by a writing. The general rule at common law was that an oral modification of a written contract that includes an n.o.m. clause was enforceable not withstanding the clause. UCC Section 2-209(2) now provides that if a contract for the sale of goods includes an n.o.m. clause modifications must be in writing. The force of Section 2-209(2) is moderated by Section 2-209(4), which provides that although an attempt at modification does not satisfy Section 2-209(2) it can operate as a waiver.


2020 ◽  
pp. 0067205X2097975
Author(s):  
Patrick McCabe

This article considers the phenomenon of contractually-imposed restraints on political communication. Such restraints often incidentally arise from broad limits on out-of-hours conduct imposed by employment contracts or from confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses in deeds of settlement. It is argued that the implied freedom of political communication has work to do in relation to at least some categories of such restraints. The various objections to that view are examined and it is argued those objections are not compelling. The article analyses the question of how the implied freedom would operate in respect of contracts that impermissibly burden freedom of political communication, and suggests that this may be achieved by developing the common law of contract to accomodate a doctrine similar to the doctrine governing unreasonable restraints of trade.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wong ◽  
Joseph Lai

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the concerns and implications of the recently enacted Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) (PMSO) of Hong Kong.Design/methodology/approachA review was undertaken to identify the characteristics of the property management-related legislation of common law jurisdictions similar to Hong Kong, which include Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Then, the development of the property management-related ordinances in Hong Kong and the key features of the PMSO were examined. Finally, a case study was conducted to demonstrate the potential problems of the PMSO.FindingsThere are various kinds of legislative controls on property management services in the above common law jurisdictions. The PMSO, which is the first to regulate property management services providers through a licencing system and introduce control on training and professional development, imposes limits on freedom of contract and self-regulation of professionals. Potential problems with the implementation of the PMSO are also revealed.Research limitations/implicationsThis research analyses four common law jurisdictions. Property management services contracts in these jurisdictions are subject to governance by their case laws and market operations.Practical implicationsBy virtue of the new licencing system of the PMSO, property management services contracts in Hong Kong become a new kind of specific contracts.Originality/valueThis paper illustrates the relationship between freedom of contract and public benefit. It contributes knowledge to the area of government policy formulation in property management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (19) ◽  
pp. 118-127
Author(s):  
Nurli Yaacob ◽  
Nasri Naiimi

Good faith has been defined as justice, fairness, reasonableness, decency, taking no chances, and so on. The concept of good faith has long been rooted in contract law under the jurisdiction of Civil law, although the definition of it is still debated until today. However, the view of the Common Law tradition does not recognize the concept of good faith as long as the contract is entered into with the freedom of contract and both parties abide by the terms of the contract. Given that a franchise contract involves a long-term contract and always been developed, it is impossible to define both rights and responsibilities base on express terms only. As such, the franchise contract gives the franchisor the right to exercise its discretion in executing the contract. It is in this context that the element of good faith is very important to ensure that the franchisor does not take advantage of the franchisee and that the business continues to prosper. Therefore, the objective of this article is to discuss the concept of good faith in a franchise contract. The findings show that the common law system that initially rejected the application of the concept of good faith also changed its approach and began to recognize the concept of good faith as it is very important for relational contracts such as franchise contracts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document