With a specific end goal to break down this case, it would be a smart thought to begin by defining the term law and contract law. A law can be stated as “ A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong” (blackstone). Contract law can be defined as the written agreement which binds two people with certain rules and regulations as decided by both the parties and mentioned in the contract.
The facts of the case
Amal is a close friend of bushra who wanted to gift her beautiful present. They went to a Reema Jewelers to buy a gift where Chaminda the store manager assisted them. Bushra was given a option to buy anything she likes. After looking at everything…show more content… There are number of people that lack contractual capacity which includes minors, the mentally challenged, people in procession of intoxicating substance and imprisoned convicts (Jeffrey A Helewitz 2010)
Pettit v Liston 1920
Pettit a minor wanted to purchase a motorcycle from Liston. They got into an agreement of paying $25 per month with initial payment of $125. After a month pettit wanted to return the motorcycle and get his initial payment back as the Motorcycle was damaged. Liston refused to return the money and take the case to court, as the pettit had caused a damaged of $157 to the motorcycle which was more than the initial payment. The trial court rejected the case and Pettit offered.
Here in the above case all the four parties Amal, Bushra, Mr chaminder and the finance company are above 18 years of age, all of them are mentally fit, and none of them have procession of any toxic ting substance. Therefore all the parties have complete right to get in any contract they like…show more content… On the basis of what Mr. Redgrave published Mr. Hurd purchased the property and the partnership in the law practice on the premises. After few years when he realized that the law practice was “absolutely useless“, he refused to make any more payments. The offended party sued for particular execution. Redgrave was successful at trial and Hurd appealed.
Here in the above case also the gold chain which Bushra and Amal liked to purchased was said to be 22K gold by Mr. chaminder the store manager. Later when Bushra went to sell the gold chain she found that the gold chian was not a real gold and just has a gold plated which was wearing off slowly. Here Mr. Chaminder misrepresented the real price and value to sell off the chain. This is just not the right way to make the contract. Bushra when she found decided to sue the store manager but she really can’t do because she is just a third party and there is no contract between her and store manager. Amal the friend of Bushra can sue the store manager but like the case of Redgrave v Hurd where Hurd was on fault, here also Amal can be on fault for not checking the product properly before purchasing. Therefore looking at this Fraudulent Misrepresentation there is no genuineness of