8. Moonwatee and Skim Young exchanged engagement rings in February 2002.

Unfortunately,
their relationship deteriorated and each accused the other of threats and assaults. In May 2004
the couple separated and Moonwatee filed for a Protection Order under the Domestic Violence
Act. The magistrate at the hearing voluntarily advised that the parties should return the rings
they had given to each other. Skim immediately returned the ring he had, along with some of
Moonwatee's other possessions. Moonwatee whose ring had cost 10 times more refused to return
her ring and has now objected to so do before the magistrate. The magistrate said she could not
compel the return of the ring and the parties can do what they feel is right. Please advise Skim
who would like the ring returned.

Issue: Was there any intention to create legal relations when they decided to get married?

Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity
agree with sufficient certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain
obligations that are not contrary to law or public policy. The existence of a contract requires
certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform and a valuable
consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant left
items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held
that there the oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be formed
but the conduct of the defendant by actually utilizing the items would have constituted his
acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that it
becomes binding on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is
addressed. In the case of Storer v Manchester City Council the plaintiff received an offer to
purchase a house where he would have to sign and return to documents to accept that offer.
New management decided that the house would not be sold after he had received the
documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

An acceptance is a final expression of assent to the terms of the offeror and must be
communicated orally or in writing. In the case of Bougainville Investment Corp. v Semple, Mr.
Semple incurred expenditures relating to a project in Bougainville. It was alleged that Mr.
Semple had agreed to pay the expenditure costs to Bougainville Investment Corp. The court
held that there was no contract was formed because even if Mr Semple made an offer, there
was no form of acceptance by Bougainville Investment Corp.

In domestic agreements, such as between family members or friends, it is assumed that there
is no intention to create legal intentions. In the case of Smith v Mottley, Mottley agreed to build
a house for his niece Smith who sent money from the United Kingdom to Barbados for the
house to be build. Mottley build the house poorly and Smith want to take legal action but the
court held that there was no attempt to enter into a legally binding contract and there was no
intention to create legal relations.

Analysis: In the present case of Moonwatee and Skim Young, both parties decided to exchange
engagement rings after which they separated later on due to their relationship deteriorating.
There was no indication of a contract being formed as no offer was made, no acceptance was
communicated, and because marriage is being considered a domestic agreement, there was no
intention to create legal relations when they exchanged rings. Therefore, the items given to each
other would be considered as a gift since no contract was formed with the terms that items given
to each other would have to be returned if they were to separate.

Conclusion:
Skim cannot force Moonwatee to return the ring because of the absence of a contract and the
fact that getting married is not viewed as an intention to create legal relations.
10. Universal Scrap Metals Inc. and J. Sandman & Sons Inc. (S&S) were both in the business of buying and
reselling nonferrous scrap metals. On July 6, 1996, Universal and S&S signed an agreement under which
Universal was to provide S&S with a line of credit for use in buying scrap metal, and S&S was to sell its nonferrous
scrap metal to Universal. Paragraph six of the agreement stated that if the principals of S&S decided to sell the
business, Universal would have the “right of first refusal” to buy, manage, or operate S&S's business “under
mutually agreed upon conditions.” According to Universal, in March 2001, S&S sold virtually all its operating
assets to City Scrap Metal LLC without first offering Universal a right of first refusal. Universal sued S&S for
breach of contract. Please advise S&S.

Issue: Did S&S Breach contract by selling to City Scrap Metal?

Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity agree with sufficient
certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain obligations that are not contrary to law or
public policy. The existence of a contract requires certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to
perform and a valuable consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant
left items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held that there the
oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be formed but the conduct of the
defendant by actually utilizing the items would have constituted his acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that it becomes binding
on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. In the case of Storer v
Manchester City Council the plaintiff received an offer to purchase a house where he would have to sign and
return to documents to accept that offer. New management decided that the house would not be sold after he
had received the documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

An acceptance is a final expression of assent to the terms of the offeror and must be communicated orally or in
writing. In the case of Bougainville Investment Corp. v Semple, Mr. Semple incurred expenditures relating to a
project in Bougainville. It was alleged that Mr. Semple had agreed to pay the expenditure costs to Bougainville
Investment Corp. The court held that there was no contract was formed because even if Mr Semple made an
offer, there was no form of acceptance by Bougainville Investment Corp.

In commercial agreements, is presumed that the parties intend to create legal relations and conclude a contract.
The establishment of intention to create legal relations will be determined by the court based on facts and can
also be determined by evidence. In the Matter of the Estate of Raphael Williams, Deceased, Cliff Williams and
Aggie Williams v The Moorings Limited, there was a dispute on the sum to be paid for the settlement of debts.
It was held that the contract was binding and therefore there could not be any further variations of the sum to
be paid.

Consideration is a requirement of a contract whereby someone of value must be given that is detriment to the
promisee or beneficial to the promisor. In the case of National Insurance Board (Appellant) v [1] Ann Marie
Duncan-Mason [2] Peter Mason (Respondents), upon the request of the respondents, the appellant agreed to
sell property previously owned by the respondents but then refused to sign the agreement. It was held that
there was no consideration by National Insurance Board to release the property because they did not sign the
letter.

For a contract to be binding, it needs to be certain and the court must be able to identify exactly what has been
agreed. If parties have not agreed on an essential term of the contract, then the court will be reluctant to provide
it. In the case of Toojays (Appellant) v Westhaven Limited (Respondent) a new lease agreement was done but
it remained undated. The contract stated a option to renew but no consideration was included. It was held that
the essentials terms of a contract was not met, such as consideration and as such the contract was not binding.

Analysis: In the present case of Universal Scrap Metals Inc. and J. Sandman & Sons In. (S&S), Universal and S&S
signed an agreement under which the terms considering scrap metal was clearly outlined. However, the phrases
“right of first refusal” and “under mutually agreed upon conditions” are unclear. Therefore, this aspect of the
contract cannot be binding as it is not clear what the right of first refusal is or what the mutually agreed upon
conditions are.

Conclusion: S&S did not breach the contract when they decided to sell their assets to City Scrap Metal because
the contract regarding selling any or part of S&S’s assets lacked certainty.
13. Big People Limited (BPL) saw a tender for the construction of a road in the country known as
La La Land placed in the National Newspaper by the Ministry of Works (MOW). The tender
document stipulated that tenders would be assessed on the basis of price, financial capability,
technical competence, experience in similar projects and available equipment. At the public
opening of the bid, BPL had the lowest price and the most experience in executing similar
projects. The tender document stated that “MOW was not bound to accept any tender at
all”. BPL and all other responders to the bid were informed that no award was to be made. Six
weeks later in a public advertisement, it was announced by MOW that a contract for the tendered
works had been awarded to Smart People Limited (SPL) who had the third highest bid and never
executed a similar project. Please advise BPL.

Issue: Can BPL take action against MOW for breaching Contract A?

Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity
agree with sufficient certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain
obligations that are not contrary to law or public policy. The existence of a contract requires
certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform and a valuable
consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant left
items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held
that there the oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be formed
but the conduct of the defendant by actually utilizing the items would have constituted his
acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that it
becomes binding on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is
addressed. In the case of Storer v Manchester City Council the plaintiff received an offer to
purchase a house where he would have to sign and return to documents to accept that offer.
New management decided that the house would not be sold after he had received the
documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

When parties are invited to make an offer, it is known as an invitation to treat as invitations to
treat are not made with the intention to become binding as soon as the person to whom it is
addressed communicates their acceptance. In the case of Kiyo Itakura Investments v Bentall
Properties Ltd, Itakura enter into a lease agreement with Bental Properties (BPMI) after which
the agreement was amended due to poor sales. Later on, BPMI sent an agreement to Itakura to
be signed and during that process, BLMI leased the property to another party. The courts held
that there was no contract until the agreement was executed by BPMI. Also, since the contract
was prepared by BPMI’s agents and there was no negotiation taking place between both parties,
it would be considered an invitation to treat.

Tenders are generally considered as an invitation to treat where a party is invited to make a bid
which constitutes an offer, and the party issuing the invitation is only looking for offers. Unless
specifically stated, the party inviting tenders is not bound to accept any tender unless it is
specifically stated. However, there are circumstances where a tender submitted must be
considered fairly by the party seeking offers, even if it is not accepted. This submission of the
tender to the party inviting offers means that the party inviting offers becomes contractually
bound to consider the bid and this process of being contractually bound is known as Contract A.
Contract B is formed with the party whose submitted bid is accepted. In the case of Pomerleau
Inc. v Newfoundland and Labrador, Pomerleau submitted a bit which was considered incomplete
and non-compliant and was deemed rejected.
There is an emerging doctrine in contract law that in the tendering process, there is a duty to act
fairly. In the case of Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia, British Columbia issued a
request for proposal for to design and construct a highway. Six companies submitted tenders,
but British Columbia then decided that they would design the highway and reopened the request
for proposals to the six companies who had initially submitted tenders stating that proposals
from any other party would not be considered. However, British Columbia awarded the contract
to another party who had collaborated with another company, breaking the express terms laid
out by British Columbia. It was held that due British Columbia breaking express terms by
considering a bid from an illegible bidder, they breached the duty to act fairly to the six original
bidders.

Analysis: In the present case of Big People Limited (BPL) v Ministry of Works (MOW), MOW made
an invitation for tenders for a construction of a road and that the tenders would be assessed
based on price, financial capability, technical competence, similar experience and available
equipment. They also made a disclaimer that they would not be bound to accept any tender at
all. BPL successfully placed his bid with the lowest price, and experience in similar project and
therefore Contract A would have formed between BPL and MOW, where BPL’s bid should have
been considered fairly. Later on when it was announced that the bid was awarded to Smart People
Limited (SPL) whose bid could be considered non-compliant because they no experience in similar
projects. By awarding the contract to SPL, they breached the duty to act fairly to BLP whose bid
was compliant.

Conclusion: BLP should take action against MOW for breaching Contract A and their duty to act
fairly but awarding the tender to SPL, whose bid was not as suitable as the bid submitted by
BLP.
15. Jason M’ngohead attended an auction held by the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Road Repairs with a view
to purchasing a multimedia projector that was advertised as being part of the auction proceedings. When Jason
arrived at the auction site, he visited the auction room and examined the multimedia projector. He was quite
familiar with the particular model and observed that the notes of the auctioneer indicated that it was five years
old. Jason was fairly certain that this information was incorrect and that the projector was just under two years
old. The auction started and Jason successfully bid $15,000.00 for the projector which was in line with the price
for a five year old projector. If the projector was just under two years old, it would have been worth around
$45,000.00. Jason was overjoyed and he took possession of the projector and went home. Two days later,
Jason received a letter from the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Road Repairs demanding that he returned the
projector as it was sold to him by error and that they were willing to give him the five year old projector at the
same price that he paid at the auction. Jason is reluctant to comply with the letter and is seeking your advice.

Issue: Should Jason return the projecter he purchased from the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau, a mistake on the
part of the TTBRP?

Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity agree with sufficient
certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain obligations that are not contrary to law or
public policy. The existence of a contract requires certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to
perform and a valuable consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant
left items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held that there the
oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be formed but the conduct of the
defendant by actually utilizing the items would have constituted his acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that it becomes binding
on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. In the case of Storer v
Manchester City Councilthe plaintiff received an offer to purchase a house where he would have to sign and
return to documents to accept that offer. New management decided that the house would not be sold after he
had received the documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

An acceptance is a final expression of assent to the terms of the offeror and must be communicated orally or in
writing. In the case of Bougainville Investment Corp. v Semple, Mr. Semple incurred expenditures relating to a
project in Bougainville. It was alleged that Mr. Semple had agreed to pay the expenditure costs to Bougainville
Investment Corp. The court held that there was no contract was formed because even if Mr Semple made an
offer, there was no form of acceptance by Bougainville Investment Corp.

In commercial agreements, is presumed that the parties intend to create legal relations and conclude a contract.
The establishment of intention to create legal relations will be determined by the court based on facts and can
also be determined by evidence. In the Matter of the Estate of Raphael Williams, Deceased, Cliff Williams and
Aggie Williams v The Moorings Limited, there was a dispute on the sum to be paid for the settlement of debts.
It was held that the contract was binding and therefore there could not be any further variations of the sum to
be paid.

Consideration is a requirement of a contract whereby something of value must be given that is detriment to the
promisee or beneficial to the promisor. In the case of National Insurance Board (Appellant) v [1] Ann Marie
Duncan-Mason [2] Peter Mason (Respondents), upon the request of the respondents, the appellant agreed to
sell property previously owned by the respondents but then refused to sign the agreement. It was held that
there was no consideration by National Insurance Board to release the property because they did not sign the
letter.
For a contract to be binding, it needs to be certain and the court must be able to identify exactly what has been
agreed. If parties have not agreed on an essential term of the contract, then the court will be reluctant to provide
it. In the case of Toojays (Appellant) v Westhaven Limited (Respondent) a new lease agreement was done but
it remained undated. The contract stated a option to renew but no consideration was included. It was held that
the essentials terms of a contract was not met, such as consideration and as such the contract was not binding.

If one or both parties to a contract enter into it under some misunderstanding or misapprehension, in certain
circumstances the courts are prepared to allow the parties to walk away from the contract, given that if they
had known of a particular fact, they would not have entered the contract. In the case of Great Peace Shipping
Limited v Tsavliris (International) Limited ‘Great Peace’/’Cape Providence’, Cape Providence sought assistance
from Great Peace, a vessel reported to be the closest to Cape Providence. It was discovered that there was
another vessel closer to Cape Providence than Great Peace, after which Cape Providence cancelled their pending
assistance from Great Peace who then requested their cancellation fee. The courts held that it was an
assumption by both parties that they were in close proximity to each other and Cape Providence still had to pay
the cancellation as even though they were far, it was not impossible to still meet each other.

A party who has entered into a written contract under a serious mistake about its contents in relation to a
fundamental term will be entitled in equity to an order rescinding the contract. The court will not grant an
equitable remedy where the person seeking to enforce a contract knew of a mistake but was seeking to benefit
from it. In the case of Yambou Development Co Ltd v Kauser, Mrs and Miss Bess were unable to raise the needed
funds and a mortgage as a form of repayment was agreed upon with interest at a rate of 1% per month.
Calculations of the interest was made at a rate of 1% per annum and Mr and Mrs Bess tried to take advantage
of the mistake by not wanting to rectify the mistake made. The courts held that once the mistake came to light,
Mrs Hadley was entitled to have the transaction completed on the agreed terms.

Analysis: In the present case of Jason M’ngohead v Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Road Repairs (TTBRP), TTBRP
held an auction for the sale of what they stated was a five year old projector but was actually a two year old
projector. Jason intentionally purchased the projector under the premise that the projector was two years. Upon
realising their mistake, TTBRP wrote to Jason to replace the mistaken projector. Just as in the case of Yambou
Development Co Ltd v Kauser, TTBRP who upon realising their mistake should be allowed to rectify their mistake
as they intended to sell a five year old projector instead of a two year old projector.

Conclusion: Jason should acknowledge the mistake made by TTBRP and return the two year old projector to in
exchange for the five year projector.
18. Deigo Poonwassie is a young boy age 10 attending Curepe Junior School. At 11.33 am
on the 3rd of October, 2008, Deigo visited the café of Ms. Punchita Moss, who is well known
to Deigo, to purchase a Channa punch. Ms. Moss indicated that the price of the punch
was $10.00 for a medium sized cup and Diego said he would purchase same but he needed
to visit the toilet and therefore she would have to guard the drink to prevent any stranger
drinking same in his absence. Ms. Moss agreed and accepted the $10.00 from Diego who
then proceeded to the bathroom. On his return to the café, Diego observed Ms. Moss
drinking from his channa punch. Diego angrily demanded his money back or a new drink
but Ms. Moss refused to do either. Please advise Diego

Issue: Can Diego enforce his demands for a new drink or his money on the grounds that he
is a minor.
Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity
agree with sufficient certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain
obligations that are not contrary to law or public policy. The existence of a contract requires
certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform and a valuable
consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant left
items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held
that there the oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be
formed but the conduct of the defendant by actually utilizing the items would have
constituted his acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that
it becomes binding on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom
it is addressed. In the case of Storer v Manchester City Council the plaintiff received an offer
to purchase a house where he would have to sign and return to documents to accept that
offer. New management decided that the house would not be sold after he had received the
documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

An acceptance is a final expression of assent to the terms of the offeror and must be
communicated orally or in writing. In the case of Bougainville Investment Corp. v
Semple, Mr. Semple incurred expenditures relating to a project in Bougainville. It was
alleged that Mr. Semple had agreed to pay the expenditure costs to Bougainville Investment
Corp. The court held that there was no contract was formed because even if Mr Semple
made an offer, there was no form of acceptance by Bougainville Investment Corp.
In commercial agreements, is presumed that the parties intend to create legal relations and
conclude a contract. The establishment of intention to create legal relations will be
determined by the court based on facts and can also be determined by evidence. In the
Matter of the Estate of Raphael Williams, Deceased, Cliff Williams and Aggie Williams v The
Moorings Limited, there was a dispute on the sum to be paid for the settlement of debts. It
was held that the contract was binding and therefore there could not be any further
variations of the sum to be paid.
Consideration is a requirement of a contract whereby someone of value must be given that
is detriment to the promisee or beneficial to the promisor. In the case of National Insurance
Board (Appellant) v [1] Ann Marie Duncan-Mason [2] Peter Mason (Respondents), upon the
request of the respondents, the appellant agreed to sell property previously owned by the
respondents but then refused to sign the agreement. It was held that there was no
consideration by National Insurance Board to release the property because they did not
sign the letter.
For a contract to be binding, it must be made by the persons with the requisite capacity,
otherwise known as the legal ability to make the contract. In the case of minors, whenever
a minor enters into a contract with another person for the purchase or supply of
necessaries such as food, drink, clothing, medical aid, and board and lodging, the contract
will bind the minor. In the case of First Charter Financial Corp Ltd v Musclow, McLennan
Motors sold a motor vehicle to Musclow under a conditional sales contract. Musclow had
transferred or contemplated transferring the motor car to Alan MacDonald who had not
reached the age of majority and MacDonald’s mother was told that she had to guarantee
her son’s financial commitment. Alan MacDonald then reported the car stolen and the car
stripped of all parts after which the company wrote to Alan MacDonald’s mother demanding
payment of the balance owing. It was held that because the mother was aware that Alan’s
mother had guaranteed her son’s financial commitment, they entered into the contract,
knowing that if there was no guarantee from Mrs MacDonald, they would have never
entered into a contract with Mrs MacDonald and her son. Therefore, Mrs Macdonald could
not disclaim liability.
Analysis: In the present case of Diego Poonwassie and Ms. Punchia Moss, Diego purchased
a punch from Ms Moss, and did not collect the punch as he had to go to the toilet. Upon his
return, he found Ms. Moss drinking his punch, and he demanded his money back or a new
drink. Although food is considered a necessary, not all goods clasified as necessary are
actually necessary. Therefore, even though food is necessary, a purchasing a punch may
not be deemed a necessary food for a minor.

Conclusion: Although food is considered a necessary, a punch is not necessarily a

necessary and therefore Mrs. Moss would not be obligated to give Diego back his money or
for tonight.
19. Rohan Shivanand ten (10) years of age, attended the one day international between West
Indies and South Africa at the Queen’s Park Oval. This was his third trip to the Oval. He
observed a nuts man calling out “Fresh and Salt, Nuts Nuts Nuts!!” Rohan also saw the man
was collecting money after he threw the nuts to a spectator. Rohan put up his hand a pack
of nuts was thrown to him. He caught the nuts and started eating. A few minutes later the
nuts man came and asked for five dollars and Rohan said he had no money and he was not
aware the nuts was for sale. He pointed out to the man that the simply called out “Fresh
and Salt, Nuts Nuts Nuts!!” and never indicated it was for sale. In any event Rohan said he
had no money. The nuts man then asked Rohan’s dad who was sitting a few seats away for
the money. Rohan dad was so engrossed in the cricket and was unaware of what
transpired. Rohan’s dad indicated he was not paying any money. Please advise the nuts
man.

Issue: Will the nuts man be able to get his payment from a minor for his nuts?

Law: A contract is a written or oral agreement where at least two parties with legal capacity
agree with sufficient certainty in accordance with terms and conditions to perform certain
obligations that are not contrary to law or public policy. The existence of a contract requires
certain elements such as an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform and a valuable
consideration. In the case of Visual Arts Production v Marcus Jean Baptiste, the claimant left
items after which the defendant possessed the items and began using them. The Court held
that there the oral discussions could not constitute an acceptance of the contract to be
formed but the conduct of the defendant by actually utilizing the items would have
constituted his acceptance of the oral contract.

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms with the intention that
it becomes binding on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom
it is addressed. In the case of Storer v Manchester City Council the plaintiff received an offer
to purchase a house where he would have to sign and return to documents to accept that
offer. New management decided that the house would not be sold after he had received the
documents to contract the sale of the house. It was held that there was a contact where the
plaintiff returned the signed and returned the sale agreement.

An acceptance is a final expression of assent to the terms of the offeror and must be
communicated orally or in writing. In the case of Bougainville Investment Corp. v Semple, Mr.
Semple incurred expenditures relating to a project in Bougainville. It was alleged that Mr.
Semple had agreed to pay the expenditure costs to Bougainville Investment Corp. The court
held that there was no contract was formed because even if Mr Semple made an offer, there
was no form of acceptance by Bougainville Investment Corp.
In commercial agreements, is presumed that the parties intend to create legal relations and
conclude a contract. The establishment of intention to create legal relations will be
determined by the court based on facts and can also be determined by evidence. In the Matter
of the Estate of Raphael Williams, Deceased, Cliff Williams and Aggie Williams v The Moorings
Limited, there was a dispute on the sum to be paid for the settlement of debts. It was held
that the contract was binding and therefore there could not be any further variations of the
sum to be paid.
Consideration is a requirement of a contract whereby someone of value must be given that is
detriment to the promisee or beneficial to the promisor. In the case of National Insurance
Board (Appellant) v [1] Ann Marie Duncan-Mason [2] Peter Mason (Respondents), upon the
request of the respondents, the appellant agreed to sell property previously owned by the
respondents but then refused to sign the agreement. It was held that there was no
consideration by National Insurance Board to release the property because they did not sign
the letter.

For a contract to be binding, it must be made by the persons with the requisite capacity,
otherwise known as the legal ability to make the contract. In the case of minors, whenever a
minor enters into a contract with another person for the purchase or supply of necessaries
such as food, drink, clothing, medical aid, and board and lodging, the contract will bind the
minor. In the case of First Charter Financial Corp Ltd v Musclow, McLennan Motors sold a
motor vehicle to Musclow under a conditional sales contract. Musclow had transferred or
contemplated transferring the motor car to Alan MacDonald who had not reached the age of
majority and MacDonald’s mother was told that she had to guarantee her son’s financial
commitment. Alan MacDonald then reported the car stolen and the car stripped of all parts
after which the company wrote to Alan MacDonald’s mother demanding payment of the
balance owing. It was held that because the mother was aware that Alan’s mother had
guaranteed her son’s financial commitment, they entered into the contract, knowing that if
there was no guarantee from Mrs MacDonald, they would have never entered into a contract
with Mrs MacDonald and her son. Therefore, Mrs Macdonald could not disclaim liability.

Analysis: In the present case of Rohan Shivanand v The Nuts Man, Shivanand who had been
to the Queens Park Oval for the third time in this particular instance, saw the nuts man
selling nuts. Shivanand also witnessed that when the nuts man threw the nuts to a spectator,
he collected the money from that spectator after. Although the nuts man did not call a price,
it was understood that the nuts was for sale. Shivanand intentionally indicated for a pack of
nuts, knowing that the nuts man would ask for money after, based on what he witnessed
before. Shivanand, intentionally took advantage of his status as a minor and took the pack
of nuts.

Conclusion: Although what should be recommended is that the nuts man be paid, it cannot
be enforced because Shivanand is a minor, assuming that the nuts is not necessary and
Shivanand’s family would have walked with their own food for the cricket match.
44. In January 2004, Magnum Limited agreed to purchase 30% of the shares in Signal Incorporated for 10 million
dollars. The agreement was negotiated over breakfast at the Hi-Flyers Hotel and the parties shook hands and
promised to have a formal agreement drawn up within 48 hours. John Rajkumar, the Chairman and Principal
Shareholder of Signal Limited, was leaving the hotel when he met Mary Sahadeo, a young and aggressive
executive in whom he confided about the sale of shares. Mary is a principal member of the management team
of Brightness Limited and she indicated that her company would have paid 3 times more for the shares of Signal
Limited than was offered by Magnum Limited. She asked if there had been any written agreement and John
told her that nothing had been signed. Mary then rushed John to her office and an agreement was executed
for the sale of the shares from Signal Incorporated to Brightness Limited. Please advise Magnum Limited as to
any action(s) they may take in law to obtain redress.

Issue: Whether Magnum Limited can take action against Signal Incorporated for selling shares to Brightness
Limited based on Brightness Limited's employee.

Law: Tort is the branch of civil law relation to obligations imposed by operation of law on all natural and artificial
persons. It concerns basic duties one persons owes to another outside of a contract or unjust enrichment. Tort
enables the person who whom the obligation is owed to pursue a remedy on his own behalf where the breach
of a relevant norm of conduct infringes his interest to a degree recognized by the law as such an infringement.

The concept of duty of care examines whether the law acknowledges the possibility of tortious liability in a given
situation. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson the appellant drank a bottle that contained the remains of a
snail which could not have been detected until most of the ginger ale was consumed. This led to the questions
of what acts can be reasonably forseen as likely to injure one's neighbour and who can be considered a
neighbour. It was held that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably
forsee that would be likely to harm their neighbour.

In tort law, there is a standard of care that defines the conduct that must be present to establish negligence.
Another element of this is that there needs to be a determination of what is the appropriate standard of care
and if that standard of care was breached by the defendant. In the case of Javier Arthurton BNF, Sandra
Arthurton, Claimant c Winston Skeete, First Defendant and Wesk Limited, a claim was brought against Winston
Skeete for injuries sustained in an accident while stepping on a ramp to board boat. The court held that the
defendants were not negligent and had exercised the duty of care at the standard of care required. Questions
arose to determining the right standard of care where in the case Orchard v Lee, two thirteen year old boys
were playing where one was injured. The judge dismissed the claim stating that it was an accident caused by
horseplay among boys who do what boys do.

In establishing legal liability in tort, the defendant must be shown to have caused the loss or damage in
question. In the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, a night watch
went to the hospital after drinking tea that was poisoned and throwing up. He went to the hospital and was told
by the nurse to go home, where he subsequently died. The courts held that the negligence of the defendants
caused the death of the deceased.

If two parties have an existing contract and a third party is aware of it and persuades one party to break the
contract with the other party, it can be considered a tortious act where the party that breaks the contract will
be held liable for injury to the other party. In the case of OBG v Allan, the defendants were receivers purportedly
appointed under a floating charge which is admitted to have been invalid. The courts held that OGB was not
liable since there has been no breach or non-performance of the relevant contracts.
Analysis: In the case of Magnum Limited and Signal Incorporated, both companies agreed verbally on the sale
of shares. Thereafter, an employee of Brightness Limited disclosed to Signal Incorporated which persuaded
Signal to breach the verbal agreement reached with Magnum for the sale of shares. Furthermore, Mary then
rushed John, the chairman of signal to execute the sale of the shares. In this case, it is clear that John would
have disclosed the particulars of the purchase to a third party and Mary would have taken advantage of that
knowledge and persuaded the chairman of Signal to breach the verbal contract formed between Magnum and
Signal. the question may arise of whether a contract existed between Magnum and Signal. One can assume
that a contract did exist because both parties had agreed on how many of the shares would sold and at what
price it would be sold. Therefore, Magnum can take legal action against Mary for any damages caused by the
breach of contract between Magnum and Signal.

Conclusion: Magnum should take legal action against Mary Sahadeo for inducing the chairman of Signal Limited
to breach their contract with Magnum Limited.
46. Rabindra Suklal is an Information Technology Expert employed with the University of Chickland. It is a
tradition of the University of Chickland to celebrate every national and religious occasion with rousing staff
parties. At one such party held to celebrate the National Carnival celebrations, Suklal proceeded to sample
many of the fine liqueurs available until he became properly inebriated. While walking back to the bar to
continue his drinking binge, Suklal was confronted by Jack Daniel who, although he recognized that Suklal was
somewhat drunk, proceeded to ask him about the wisdom of purchasing a particular brand of lap top having
regard to his specialization in computer animation technology. Suklal heartily endorsed the proposed brand of
lap top and went on his way. Jack Daniel proceeded to purchase the lap top but discovered that it was not
stable enough to do intricate computer animation functions. Jack Daniel is quite annoyed and approaches Suklal
who informed him that he was merely speaking off the top of his head and anyway he was at a social event and
was giving free advice. John Daniel would like to sue Suklal, please advise.

Issue:
Whether or not Madan Gopaul can bring an action against the bank to recover monies invested on the grounds
of negligent misstatement/misrepresentation.

Law: According to Street, Tort is that branch of the civil law relating to obligations imposed by operation of law
on all natural and artificial person. It concerns the basic duties one person owes to another outside of a contract
or the obligations triggered by an unjust enrichment. Tort enables the person to whom the obligation is owed
to pursue a remedy on his own behalf where breach of a relevant norm of conduct infringes his interests to a
degree recognized by the law as such an infringement.

The duty of care concept arose within the framework of the ‘neighbour principle’ and mandated that one should
take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure one’s
neighbor. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the appellant drunk a bottle of Ginger Ale in which the
respondent manufactured and contained decomposed remains of a snail where the appellant suffered from
shock and severe gastroenteritis. The issue that arose, was that the respondent owed the appellant a Duty of
care to detect if there were any unwanted substances contained in the bottle. This was neglected and the
respondent was liable for any damages caused by such neglect. It was held that one must take reasonable care
to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee that would be likely to harm thy neighbor.

Once a Duty of care is determined, it is now fundamental to establish if there was an appropriate standard of
care and whether or not, this standard of care was breached by the defendant. In the case of Javier Arthurton
BNF, Sandra Arthurton v Winston Skeete and Wesk Limited, the claimant suffered damages as a result of injuries
that occurred in an accident by the respondents. The issue brought forward was whether the accident was
caused or contributed to by the negligence of the respondents. It was held that the defendants were not
negligent as they had exercised the duty of care at the standard of care required in relation to the Claimant.

Once there is a breach of duty, the claimant must show that the injury or damages was caused by the breach of
duty by the respondent and that the injury or damages were closely connected to the breach of duty. In the
case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, Mr Barnett the deceased, went to
the hospital which he complained of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He along with other men were
instructed to go home in which Mr Barnett died. It was held that there was a duty of care owed to the men that
the plaintiff had failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants’ negligence caused the
death of Mr Barnett, the deceased.

After establishment of the critical factors of a duty of care, breach of the standard of care, and causation, the
main issue that arises, Is whether the breach has caused damage and what can be recovered. A plaintiff cannot
recover damages for tortious acts where the damage is such a kind that the reasonable man could not have
foreseen. Liability is imposed where the damage is such that it should have been reasonably foreseen.
In the case of Wright v Davidson, the respondent was injured in a motor vehicle collision by the appellant. The
respondent struck the left side of her head and suffered minor injuries to her temple. Prior to the accident, she
had no known history of emotional or mental problems. She then committed suicide by hanging herself. It was
held that Mrs Wright took her life based on a conscious decision as there were no evidence that led her to
commit such act. As a result, the cause of her death was not reasonable foreseeable.
When contributory negligence is set up as a defence, its existence does not depend on any duty owed by the
injured party to the party sued. All that is necessary to establish such a defence is to prove that the injured party
did not, in his own interest, take reasonable care of himself and contributed by this want of care to his own
injury. Contributory negligence is based on the principle that where a man is part author of his own injury, he
cannot call on the other party to compensate him in full.

In the case of Clive Morris v Francis Furniture Limited, the plaintiff alleges that during his employment, the
defendant argued that the plaintiff contributed to his negligence as he did not follow the guidelines outlined
when handling the machine and was knowledgeable about the injuries that can be caused as a result, of
neglecting the measures outlined. It was held that the plaintiff disregarded the rules and guidelines of operating
the machine prior to the injury. As a result, the plaintiff contributed to his injuries as he failed to comply with
the rules, as it was reasonably foreseeable that if the rules were not adhered to then consequences would have
followed on behalf of the user.

The tort of negligent misstatement/misrepresentation arises when false statements are made by a person owing
a duty of are to the recipient. In the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others, the well known four-
element test for negligent misstatement/misrepresentation was articulated.

1. The advice is required for a purpose, whether particularly specified or generally described, which is made
known either actually or inferentially, to the adviser at the time when the advice is given.
2. The adviser knows either actually or inferentially that his advice will be communicated to the advisee, either
specifically or as a member of an ascertain class, in order.
3. It is known, either actually or inferentially that the advice so communicated is likely to be acted upon by the
advise for that purpose without independent inquiry and;
4. It is so acted upon by the advise to his detriment.

Analysis: In the Case of Rabindra Suklal and John Daniel, Daniel approached Suklal knowing that he was
inebriated and asked for advice regarding a particular brand of laptop. Suklal then proceeded to purchase that
particular brand of laptop and was not happy with what Suklal, in his inebriated state would have recommended.
In determining whether Suklal can be held liable for his negligent misstatement, the four-element test must be
applied. The advice that Daniel required was regarding his specialization in computer animation technology, but
whether Suklal would have been able to give adequate advice, given his position as an Information Technology
Expert, and knew that the advise would be communicated and acted upon can be disputed because he would
have been inebriated at that moment when Daniel spoke to him.

Conclusion: Daniel cannot take legal action against Suklal for the negligent words spoken while inebriated due
to his lack of a sound mind in giving proper advice that would be acted upon.