Elements of a Legally Binding Contract

1.Describe the elements that constitute a legally binding contract and provide references to cases.

The English law of contract is heavily relied on case laws which act as binding precedents on cases that arise in future. However, the codification of Contract law in United Kingdoms is not too remote, originating from European Directives. This is latter supplemented in statutes and codified laws governing contractual obligations. In order to substantiate an agreement, two parties intending to enter into agreement that is not social in nature may be governed by the law of Contracts provided it has five essential elements integral to satisfy it as a legal contract which can be traced as; an offer that is made by one person to another in order to enter into an agreement, once that offer is accepted by the other party coupled with consideration it becomes an agreement which when coupled with legal intention gives it a shape of a contract provided both the parties have the capacity to enter the contract. The contract can be either in forms expressed or may be implied from the actions arising out of the two parties. If the offer is assented to the acceptance takes place fulfilling another criteria, however, for counter offers, if no explicit terms of acceptance is laid forward, it shall not be deemed to have been accepted.

The first element of Offer should exist in order to start the contractual obligation which should be intended by the Offeror to make it binding when the other party accepts the offer. The nature of offer has been widely acknowledged in a case where it was held by the court that advertisement could be general offer and give rise to legal implications. The unqualified approval of the offer when communicated to the offeror becomes acceptance but in cases of counter offer, the acceptance can vary. The third essential ingredient is the existence of consideration which acts as a valuable return from the promise which is at stake within the contract, not necessarily it has to be adequate but sufficient with respect to the contract. Not only that, the intention to form a legal contractual obligation is a must differing from a social offer or domestic offer. The last but not the least, the parties forming the contractual relation should be majors having the capacity to bear the outcomes of the contractual obligations.

With reference to Thomas v Thomas (1942) which element proved crucial to this case and why?

This case was instrumental in identifying a factor that governed one of the most essential ingredients of a legally binding contract was consideration on the basis of the principle of Rule of Law. The basic facts were that, the plaintiff’s husband had offered a wish while dying that the plaintiff could actually keep a hundred pound or the house that they lived in. The defendant in the case was one of the brothers of the plaintiff and this dying wish was directly told by the husband of the plaintiff to the defendant, the brother of the plaintiff. The only clause attached to the offer was that the house could be owned by the plaintiff only until she got into another marriage and it was to be owner by her throughout her life. The plaintiff (the wife) agreed to this arrangement and agreed to maintain the house, repair it when required and pay a pound as the ground rent per year. As the second brother of the plaintiff died, the defendant brought forward an ejectment action against the plaintiff.

Pertaining to the brief facts of the case, the issues that were essentially was that the consideration should be economically adequate or legally? It is known that a contract can be valid if it was supported by a consideration, however, the promise has to put forward something of value as against the promisor and the consideration put forward by the plaintiff in this case was not adequate commercially as it was an extremely menial amount as opposed to was argued by the plaintiff that maintaining the house, paying a basic rent and taking care of the house was enough of a consideration.

It was held that this contract sufficed the element of consideration and the motive was not to be judged by the court in this case and the pound rent was held valuable. More so, without the presence of the agreement to maintain the house and the rent, this would have been a gift but not anymore. Later, in the case of Chappel, the same issue referring to the adequacy clause was looked back on where the court upheld that the quality or value offered by the offeree is not for the courts to decide but there must be the presence of an offer is that all.

2. With reference to relevant legislation and case law, examine the level of protection given to children under “duty of care” in Occupiers Liability.

The concept of occupier’s liability arose in the late sixties in England for people who are in direct control of a particular property, nit necessarily the owners, relieving the applicability of law directed to owners only. These occupiers have a responsibility or ‘duty of care’ to any other who intrudes their property and be guarded from facing any injury. Even though this law is followed on the basis of statutes, however, it has also taken great shape from case laws decided by judges. To clarify the position of the occupier over a property which can be regarded as premises, this legislation calls a person the occupier who can exercise a certain amount of control or power over the said property. The statutory legislations helped reform the old practice of common law regarding the rights and powers of occupiers on the visitors who enter a certain premise with lawful intention.

However, all the occupiers are vested with the common responsibility to extend a certain amount of care with reasonable foreseeability and reasonable safety be ensured towards the visitors while extending the umbrella of security towards children as laid out in the legislation to be presumed that children shall not expected to be as careful as an adult. They are given more attention and shielded as special visitors.

Multiple cases over the years have clarified the due care provided to children wherein the guardians or parents of the children are not to be absolutely free from responsibility and on the other hand, the occupiers have certain responsibility as well. The case of Phillips v. Rochester Corporation, the courts tried to seek a balance between the responsibilities of both the parties and claim was denied on the fact that parental responsibilities shall not be rested on the landowners but if there is a latent duty that is not natural for the parents to be aware of, the duty of care must be given by the occupiers, as was decided in the case of Glasgow Corporation v Taylor . This must also be kept in mind the nature, age and circumstances the children are in, since children beyond a certain age, has awareness and mature senses as opposed to children having no developed sense of maturity, in that case, it is pertinent that other surrounding factors being the risks undertaken, the age of the child and capacity of understanding shall be taken note of.

In the case of Bourne Leisure, the case saw a two-year old child had drowned near a caravan park which was taken by the judge as an injury that was reasonably foreseeable making it the mandatory duty of the park authorities to address a warning to the visitors and parents of the park, even the authorities had to give importance to the heights of the fences that were build but the judges didn’t seem to give much importance to this but once appealed, it was considered that such a warning is trivial and very obvious. This keeps the case at a dicey situation, wherein the warning should have created an alert in the minds of the parents but such has not happened. In another case of Anderson where a child met an accident receiving grievous injury affecting his brain, where the final onus was laid on the mother despite being careful.

Even though the occupier does not specifically have the responsibility to create warnings against events that may occur obvious to a prudent man, in that case, he shall be free of liability but a mere warning shall also not rescue the occupier from liability of providing due care but details of the foreseeable danger must be listed to spread awareness among the visitors. However, this kind of liabilities are well decided through judgments put forward by judges after adjudicating and deeply probing into the facts of the case, where a blind reading of the statute will not blatantly put charge on the occupier but factors concerning a child could be many, age, sanity, mental growth, awareness etc. which must be duly taken into account before listing down the charges.

3. Easements and Adverse Possession

In this case, Roger is the owner of registered land of 20 acres, out of which 2 acres was licensed for a year in 2006 to Susan to keep used cars. However, after the term period of the license, Susan had issued for another license, but Roger did not respond to that. On coming back in 2018, Roger witnesses the 2 acres being pad locked by Susan for her own needs.

a. The steps that he needs to take to object to the claim

Initially before 13th October, 2003, the rights of adverse possessor over an unregistered land was undisputed and unqualified as if the period of 12 years passes, the squatters may be given the same rights as a true owner, however with respect to registered land, such a claim is slightly difficult. The adverse possessor shall apply to possess the land under traditional measures but Susan in this case has not applied for the same.

Firstly, Roger can claim for the fact that after the license period was over, Susan tried to issue license to continue usage of the land but Roger had not provided with any consent to continue using the land but still Susan had indiscriminately used the land without consent and even after the term period of the license was over.

Secondly, according to the Land Registration Act, 2002, if a period of 10 years have crossed for the adverse possessor, then a claim to own the title of the lands can be made by the squatter, which shall be followed by a counter notice under Land Registration Act 2002, paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. from the original registered land owner, but in this case, Susan had not informed the land registry office after the passage of 10 years and the registered title had no better clue that the land was still being used by Susan even after the license which was issued for a period of one year was over.

b. The likelihood of Susan’s claim succeeding and the reasons for your conclusion

Three principles held address the position of adverse possession is firstly anyone who makes better use of a certain right by possessing it daily, has the probability of making a better title. Secondly, the title of the land is kept in abeyance for a considerable period of time, making the squatter use the land more than the original title holder and Thirdly, it can be assumed that the original title holder is not worried about his rights of possession over the land and is consciously allowing the squatter to use the land who is in the position of using the land. The title holder does not take appropriate steps while the time was there to prohibit the squatter from owning the title of the land. The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), Schedule 6, paragraph 1(1) provides the option to the squatter to apply for the registration to become the proprietor of the state provided such an adverse possession has been utilized before the date of limitation, being 10 years.

Keeping these principles in mind, the Land Registration Act, 2002, ensured a fair deal for both the parties. Especially in this case, Susan had been using the land from the period of 2006 to 2018 which makes it a whole twelve years squatting over the land. Since, Susan’s request of the license was not consented to, she can utilize the doctrine of estoppel, claiming silence as a sign of approval. However, the law states that the up until 13th October, 2003, adverse possessor in use of the land for twelve years has better title. Therefore, the chances are Susan shall be successful in claiming the rights of the land.

In the case of Perry v Clissold it was mostly held that if a person is in continuous physical possession of the land and not merely constructive possession of the land, assuming a certain sense and character replicating the true owner where the true owner has shown no responsibility towards the possession of the land and has slept on his rights, the adverse possessor is at an advantage, extinguishing the rights of possession of the title holder.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450, [1922] 1 AC 44

Titchener v British Railways Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427.

Bourne Leisure v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671

Anderson v Imrie [2016] EXOH 171

Darby v National Trust (2001) 3 LGLR 29

White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296

Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, [1893] 2 QB 256

Hyde v Wrency [1840] 3 Beav 334.

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; 114 ER 330