Law Essay

A contract that is enforceable requires 4 elements – namely offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations as well as consideration. In this case, Adrian merely responded to Darrell’s request for information (which was whether he installed bathroom water heaters) and hence the fact that Adrian quoted a price of $200 for his services seem to amount to a mere provision of information instead of an offer (Harvey v Facey (1893)). Hence, an assumption needs to be made that there was actually an offer since a contract was entered into thereafter.

Consequently, the act of Adrian installing the water heater seem a clear indication that there was acceptance of the offer of $200 by conduct in exchange for his services. In addition, there is also a necessary intention to create legal intentions given that it is a commercial agreement and there is good consideration ($200 from Darrell) to enforce Adrian’s promise to Darrell (to install the water-heater properly). Hence, there was an effective contract formed between Darrell and Adrian.

We now have to establish whether Adrian is in breach of a term in the contract. Darrell have a strong case to argue that the installation of the water-heater is of a satisfactory standard that will not endanger the safety of the user is an implied term in the contract. An implied term is a term which has not been expressly agreed between the parties but is nevertheless implied into the contract. The court is likely to imply such a term to give the agreement business efficacy given that the term of a satisfactory installation to ensure users’ safety is absolutely necessary for the contract (The Moorcock (1889)).

In conclusion, the breach of an implied term in the contract will be sufficient for Darrell to claim compensation from Darrell regardless of whether the term breached is a condition or a warranty.

 (a)(ii)

Adrian could have included in his contract with Darrell an exemption clause to exclude liability for his negligence. However the issue is whether the exemption clause will be valid if included in the contract.

The party who wishes to rely on the exemption clause must establish 4 aspects of the exemption clause, namely incorporation, construction, unusual factors and Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA).

The exemption clause is likely to be rendered valid as it does not comply with the UCTA. Under s2(1) of the UCTA, liability of death and personal injuries arising from negligence cannot be excluded by an exemption clause.

Therefore, the exemption clause is not valid as it contravenes the UCTA.

(a)(iii)

The issue here is whether Adrian’s promise of fixing the washing machine for Darrell is enforceable.

A valuable consideration is some benefit accruing to one party (the promisor) or some detriment suffered by the other party (the promisee): Carrie v Misa (1875). Consideration must also move from the promisee and must be sufficient. The consideration of $100 did move from Darrell and money as a form of consideration is typically considered sufficient.