According to the Case Study, Jane made a promise to Jack regarding selling of her Lotus Super 7 Sports Car for $25000 to him. As a result, a promise had been made which is a form of communication in order to undertake an obligation. Jane requires money in order to go overseas and as a result she wants to sell her car to Jack. A promise which is made in order to undertake a legally binding obligation is known as a contract. The car was in good condition as was described by Jane. The English Contact Law comprises of four elements. They are offer, acceptance, consideration, and a contractual invitation (Fafinski & Finch, 2010). There may also be a moral obligation to keep the promise and in order to enforce a promise in a contract there has to be some justification. There is a promise between Jane and Jack. Jack had accepted the offer of Jane. The cases are described according to the IRAC method.

In the first case, there was an offer made between Jane and Jack and it is not clear if the contract is written or oral or online. For a promise made in a contract, this is considered as one of the major issues. A contractual invitation offered by Jane to Jack had taken place and the market value of Lotus Super 7 Sports Car is $25000. But the rate at which Jane had offered to sell the car to Jack has not been mentioned here. Jack had accepted the offer without the knowledge of the price. But the condition of the contract offered by Jane to Jack is not clear as the price at which Jane had offered to sell the car to Jack has been unclear and this is the major issue as Jack has accepted the offer without the knowledge of the price. An invitation to treat also includes advertising the product but the major issue in this type of contract is that the amount at which Jane had offered to sell the car is not properly described here. Consideration has to be executed in order to make the promise binding (Andrews, 2011). A performance of an act in return for an offer is known as consideration which is required in order to make the offer binding. The price of the offer is not mentioned here. The contract between Jane and Jack is in an unclear method.

In the second case, Jane had offered to sell the Lotus Super 7 Sports car for $25000 which is the same price as the market price. Jane has offered to sell the car to Jack after using the product. As a result, the car should be sold at a second hand rate. This deal involves the obligation of the seller according to article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The rate at which second hand products are sold has to be less than the market value of the product according to the business law. Jane had sold her car to Jack at a rate unacceptable according to the business law. Contractual invitation has involved an inappropriate advertisement because although the Sports car was in good condition, Jane has used it. Jane did not follow the Uniform Commercial Code in this Case. As a result, issue has arisen in this case as Jane has breached the Uniform Commercial Code.

In the third case, the sports car is sold at a much lesser price than the market value. Jane had offered to sell the car to Jack for $2500 which is at very less price considering that the Lotus Super 7 Sports Car was in a good condition. She had therefore suffered a loss as she had bought the car at $25000. Consideration has to be made by both the parties of the contract and only then the agreement could be enforced. Here Jack is benefited as he has to pay a much lesser price to Jane. One party had suffered a loss for the benefit received by the other party which is the main problem in this Case.

In the first case, consideration has to be provided by both the parties for exchanging values. All the elements have to be satisfied according to section 9 of the contract law. As in the Case Study, the Consideration has not taken place as Jane has not mentioned the price of the car and Jack accepted the offer without the knowledge of the price of the car. Breach of the sales of goods act also took place here according to the Section 7 of the Contract law. Jack has accepted the offer but he has the right to ask the price of the Lotus Super 7 Sports Car clearly to Jane according to consumer rights.

In the second case, Jane has kept the value of the Sports car at the same price as the market value. There is therefore a breach of the article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The value of the Sports car should be lesser than the market value of the product because Jane is selling the Sports Car at a second hand rate(Austen-Baker, 2011). The offer made in order to undertake an obligation has taken place here but the sales of goods is not proper.

In the third case, the rules pertaining to section 52 and section 54 of the property act has not been followed as Jane has suffered a loss in selling her Lotus Super 7 Sports Car. Jane has also breached section 12 and section15 of the Sales of goods act when he offered to sell her Sports Car at $2500 when the market value of the Sports Car is $25000. Jane does not know the evaluation of the market value and the method of Sales of goods Act to commit this mistake.

1. In the first case, Jane has to state the price of the Sports Car so that the agreement is applicable. Contractual invitation took place as Jack has accepted the offer made by Jane which made the contract enforceable. However, consideration has to be provided by each party to the contract which is not provided by Jane. The value as well as the way of agreement has not been properly described in this case.

2. In the second case, Jane needs to study the market value of her car and should sell her car at a lesser price to Jack than the market price (Schulze & Zoll, 2015). Both the sales of goods act as well as the commercial codes rules have not been followed in this case.

3. Jane should follow the Property Act 1925 and the price of the second hand sports car should be fixed according to the act. The rate of the market should be properly studied by Jane and the price of the sports car should be increased so that the seller does not suffer a loss. The Property Act and the Sales of goods Act should be followed properly.

Conclusion

There is a breach of the English Contract Law in all the three cases. All the elements of the contract have taken place in these three cases. In order to solve the case, the rules of the contract law should be legally organised. All the rules are mentioned properly following which the agreement can be acceptable between both the parties and consideration can take place in the three cases. There are many rules of the contract law which has not been followed in these cases and this made the agreement unacceptable which could be solved by following the rules of the contract law properly.

In the second Case Study, there has been a contract between a shipbuilder and the North Ocean Tankers. This contract is acceptable but the promisor delays to fulfil the demands of the promisee. As a result, there is an obligation in this contract. There is conflict because the currency of the United States has devalued by 10%. The shipbuilder runs a loss and decides to charge an extra of US $3 million for his work. After the delivery of nine months, the North Ocean Tankers delayed to pay the money to the shipbuilder (Friedman, 2011). The cases are described according to the IRAC method.

In this Case, the United States government devalued the US Currency by 10% as a result there was an issue as the shipbuilder ran a loss and demanded an extra $3 million for his work. Since the delivery was essential, the North Ocean Tankers agreed in paying the money but they could not keep their promise after a period of nine months. Because of the delay the shipbuilder can sue the North Ocean Tankers to court for a breach in the rules of the contract according to the Contract law. The economists also run a loss and are unable to pay their debts. Failing in performing any terms of the contract without a legal excuse is known as breaching a contract. This includes failing to pay on time, failing to deliver the goods. The non breaching party becomes relieved of any obligation under the contract made by the breach by the other party. There are issues which arise due to this breach of contract.

Rules

North Ocean Tankers is unable to pay the debt of the shipbuilder and therefore violated the rules of the promise, the shipbuilder can sue the North Ocean Rankers for breaching the Contract according to the Contract Law. Breach of negotiation takes place in this case and penalizing damages occurred in this case. The North Ocean Tankers delays in paying the money to the shipbuilder. Therefore the shipbuilder is the innocent party and is therefore relieved of the obligations under the contract caused by the breach by the other party. The court will put the other party in a position of occupying the contract if it is fulfilled. Negotiation had taken place between the North Ocean Tankers and the shipbuilder and both of them were in agreement but the North Ocean Tankers delayed to pay the money to the shipbuilder and therefore breached the rules of the contract. The shipbuilder can also sue the North Ocean Tankers or the defendant according to the English Law for breaching the federal rules of the contract and the English court will consider the behaviour to be Unconscionability. The court will take certain steps in forcing the breaching party in fulfilling the terms of the contract (Chen-Wishart, 2012). The false statement of North Ocean Tankers will enhance the money of the shipbuilder in time as they have breached the rules of the contract made a false promise to the shipbuilder in order to get the delivery in time. But after nine months they delayed in paying the shipbuilder (Anson et al., 2010). The shipbuilder can ask for a recession from the North Ocean Tankers for a false statement as he was misguided according to the misinterpretation act 1967 (Hudson, 2008).

Professional as well as legal help is required in this case. The solution for the breach of contract can be applied in this case. They are as follows:

• Restitution and Cancellation
• Damages
• Certain Performances

Restitution who is the North Ocean Tankers could be sued in this case due to failure to perform the term of the contract. There has been dispute in this case as the promise is broken. So the North Ocean Tankers should take the help of the United States government to take loan from a national bank in paying the debt to the shipbuilder so that the shipbuilder is unable to sue the North Ocean Tankers and claim the damages done as a result of breaching the promise.

North Ocean Tankers suffers a financial crisis due to the fact that the economists are running a loss and cannot pay the debts of the shipbuilder and the Bankruptcy act 1966 can be used in this case. According to the bankruptcy act, extra time in order to pay the debts to the shipbuilder can be proved.  The English court will give six months in paying the debt of the shipbuilder according to the Bankruptcy act and the shipbuilder must wait six months for the money. Here, the shipbuilder is relieved from any obligation under the contract made by the breach of the North Ocean Tankers.  A conflict occurs and if the court is not able to solve the case, then the justification takes a long time and the judgement answer takes time (Welch et al., 2015). A legally enforceable promise is called a contract. The court will put the other party in a position of occupying the contract which has to be fulfilled. The shipbuilder can file a case against the North Ocean Tankers according to the misinterpretation act 1967 (Cartwright, 2012).

The North Ocean Tankers has breached the contract by delaying to pay the money to the shipbuilder.  Remedies for contractual breaches have not been designed in order to punish the breaching party but putting the other party in a position for occupying the contract which had been fulfilled. The case could be solved through the different remedies and reviews. Bankruptcy act could be applied in this case and there are various remedies to the breach of contract which could be applied in this case.

Andrews, N. (2011). Contract law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anson, W. R., Beatson, J., Burrows, A. S., & Cartwright, J. (2010). Anson’s law of contract. Oxford University Press.

Austen-Baker, R. (2011). Implied terms in English contract law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Cartwright, J. (2012). Misrepresentation, mistake and non-disclosure. Sweet & Maxwell.

Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford University Press.

Fafinski, S. & Finch, E. (2010). Contract law. Harlow: Longman.

Friedman, L. M. (2011). Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. Quid Pro Books.

Hudson, A. (2008). Securities law (p. 584). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Koffman, L., & Macdonald, E. (2010). The law of contract. Oxford University Press. 

Schulze, R., & Zoll, F. (2015). European Contract Law. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Strine, L. E., Hamermesh, L. A., Balotti, R. F., & Gorris, J. M. (2010). Loyalty’s Core Demand: The Defining Role of Good Faith in Corporation Law. Georgetown Law Journal, 93, 629.

Welch, E. P., Saunders, R. S., Land, A. L., Voss, J. C., & Turezyn, A. J. (2015). Folk on the Delaware General Corporation Law: Fundamentals. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.