Topic > Tort and Contract Law - 1358

Tort law is a branch of law that deals with disputes involving private parties or negligent acts that cause harm to others. This is in contrast to criminal law which is invoked for public purposes. In civil law there are compensatory awards, unlike criminal law which is punitive in nature. These remedies may be provided by civil or contractual law. To understand the civil liabilities and/or remedies required between Andy, Sam and Bob, you can only do so if you appreciate the existence of a contract between them. For this to be envisaged, the requirements of a contract must be manifested. For a contract to be foreseen it is necessary that it is mutually accepted by both parties and that the principle of consensus ad idem is manifested (Holmes, 1897). The United States Supreme Court in the case of Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, held that where the meeting of the minds has not been effected, neither party to the contract can bind the other to it, and as such it is void . There was this agreement between Andy and HOTMOTORS to purchase a car that Andy liked. For it to be binding there must also be an offer and an acceptance. In this case the offer was from HOTMOTORS and Andy accepted. There should be a consideration that is considered a central element in the formation of a contract. The rule is that the judge is concerned not with the adequacy of the consideration but rather with its sufficiency. To this end, Andy paid $8,000 for the car despite its actual value, according to Maryam, being $40. To this end, Sam may complain of a lack of consent as the car did not perform as expected . Immediately after purchase it didn't work later when it was inspected by a professional. Mary...... middle of the sheet......3] AC 92Carnes v. Thompson, (1932) Missouri Supreme Court. 48 SW 2d 903Chirenje v Vendfin Investments and others (36/05/01) [2009] ZWSC 11; SC 13/09 (March 19, 2009Costello v. United States, 1999 US Dist. LEXIS 14708, 5-6 (ND Ill. Aug. 31, 1999).Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337Harris v. Sheffield United Football Club Ltd [1988] QB 77Joubert, David J. (1996) . Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760 [1970] 1 WLR 1211; (1669) 86 ER 684