Injury and Incremental Expenses Assistant †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Injury and Incremental Expenses Assistant. Answer: Introduction: The central issue in the given situation is to tender legal advice to Rose in relation to the enforceability of the contract entered into by her with Holly (Landlady) and Grace (Daughter). A contract once entered can be varied by mutual consent of both the parties involved provided consideration is present for both the parties involved. In the absence of a mutual consideration, the modifications to the original contract would not lead to an enforceable contract which has been highlighted in the Foakes v Beer[1884] UKHL 1. In the given case, there was an agreement between Dr. Foakes and Mrs.Beer regarding settlement of a debt in instalments. However, afterwards, the plaintiff (Mrs. Beer) filed a legal application for obtaining the interest from Dr. Foakes despite initially promising not to sue the same. The House of Lords ruled in favour of Mrs. Beer since she has no consideration provided for agreeing to waive the interest (Andrews, 2011). In wake of the above decision, definition of valuable consideration becomes pivotal for which Currie v Misa(1875) LR 10 Ex 153 case needs to be referred to. This case defines consideration as follows (Peel, 2008). A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Another key aspect of contract relates to the presence of the will on the part of the contracting parties to be bound by legal relations. This is assumed to be present by default in case of commercial agreements but the same is not the case for domestic agreements (Carter, 2012). This aspect has been highlighted in the verdict of the Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 case where the honourable court highlighted that in case of domestic agreements, the default assumption is that the parties lack the intention to be legally bound and only when there is evidence in contrary of the same would the contract be held as legally enforceable (Taylor Taylor, 2015). It is apparent that owing to the injury and incremental expenses of an office assistant, Rose renegotiates the contract with her landlady Holly where there was mutual consent in relation to the reduction of rent till the time Rose returns back to work. It is apparent that altering the original lease contract, there existed an incentive for Rose who would have to pay lesser rent. But at the same time, there was incentive existing for Holly also she is able to sell the vegetables grown by herself through the shop. Therefore Holly did not want that the shop should close down. Thus, the modified contract would be considered as enforceable on both Rose and Holly. Further in relation to the promise to Grace, it is apparent that the promise to pay 500 was made by Rose after Grace had already extended the help for two weeks. While for the past work, Rose has always paid Grace and hence it is appropriate to expect some compensation on behalf of Grace. However, no such evidence exists in the current case which highlights the presence on the part of the parties to be legally bound. As a result, the contract between Rose and Grace cannot be considered as enforceable. Conclusion Based on the above, it may be concluded that Rose is not entitled to make any additional payment more than 1,000 as rent to Holly for the six month period. Also, Rose is not legally bound to make the payment of 500 to Grace as the contract is not legally enforceable. References Andrews, N. (2011). Contract Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, J. (2012). Contract Act in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Peel, E. (2008). The Law of Contract (7th ed.). London: Thompson. Taylor, R. Taylor, D. (2015) Contract Law (5th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.