Business Law essay sample
Business Law
By
Student’s Name
Course Title
Professor’s Name
Name of the University
City/State
Date
Part A.
Legal Problem
Issue
There is the issue of PH. Pty Ltd assumes no obligation for theft or damage to any automobiles parked in the loading area. The institution has marked clear signs that automobiles are parked at the owners’ risk. Besides, it is not clear if the clause protects the harbour or not. Nonetheless, Alphonse notices that his car had been smashed, property and cash stolen.
Rules
Conferring to Smart Advocaten jurisdiction, an exclusion clause, this is a provision in a contract exempting a contracting party from any eventuality. Although, the defendant may count on the clause if it has been assimilated in black and white. Also, it should be bound by both parties by either a signature, a bill, or trade custom.
Argument
Nevertheless, an exclusion clause can be logically explained as escaping responsibility or apportioning of uncertainties in advance. In most cases, exclusion clauses are informed by reasonable circumstances, in view of the situation at hand. Besides, setting clear and definite exclusion statements is key to avoid misinterpretations or unpredicted deliberations in a court of law. Therefore, it was expected of Alphonse to agree to the exclusion liability and use his our insurance as a cover against any eventuality. Therefore, the courts will not have a rough time explaining which or what or inclining that it is unacceptable to depend on the exclusion clause. However, in case there was personal insurance cover, Alphonse should file for an insurance claim for damage and theft.
Further, PH Pty Ltd could have an advantage over any individual that parks his vehicle in the loading area. This is possible if the company explains why the parties have to take the risk. Notably, it is agreeable that if a party is liable, that liability is limited to the degree and the much money the insurance company can cover for, with respect to consideration of the risk being accounted for. As the reasons become clear, it becomes evident that such a clause can only be implemented to limited specifics. For instance, in case the company stuff damaged the vehicle, then the company can be sued for damages or the worker responsible for negligence.
However, according to the law of contract, the port Harbor had failed to offer judicious security contractually. Port Harbor could not rely on the “visible sign” by the entrance gate because it was not part of the contract with Mr Alfonse. The port itself formed it. At that point, there was no way Mr Alfonse could be aware of the disclaimer so it could not be part of the contract. On the other hand, the first question was, is the sign formed part of the treaty?. Now people lit is vital that PH Pty Ltd, however much they depend on the exemption clause, escaping standard law liability; they should make it clear the sign is not part of a contract. It is assumable that the sign is a contract since it was put in place to make ensure compliance. Furthermore, a contract is legally binding if both parties agree to the terms. The terms of the settlement must not only be established but the intentions to craft the legality scrutinized and fair.
The best way of proving the terms of the contracts and intending to create legal relations is by a written manuscript sign up done by both parties to be sealed in this case. Mr Alfonse and PH, Pty, Ltd. Another alternative is handing Mr Alfonse before or at the time of the contract a written notice specifying terms and conditions for proper parking and security, making it clear to him that the deal is on those terms and specifications. (More notice would usually be required if the exclusion clause is particularly unusual). Expressing an oral condition would evidently have the equivalent consequence.
Assuming, however, that Mr Alfonse did agree to be guaranteed by the terms and conditions of the sign by the entrance, this raises the question on the accurate elucidation. The company exempted itself from liability possible negligence. It is a painful reality that proper interpretation of the exclusion law at the gate exempted PH Pty Ltd from liability for their negligence. Besides, depending on whether the harbour was a typical loading bay with the accountability, the common law of an insurer or a private company only covers for. I think it should not depend on the questions, or slightly it should depend on whether Mr Alfonse has a more persuasive argument compared to PH Ltd because it is clear that the phrase was not assimilated in the contract. There was no binding evidence to show that he agreed to the provision. The exclusion clause, in this case, was neither part of the agreement between the company and Mr Alfonse, nor did it protect the company.
The exemptions should be vibrant on the contract for a person to be exempted from liability for negligence. It should, however, be independent of court interpretation since courts may ultimately take on the question of if the loading bay is privately owned or not. Nonetheless, regardless of the company is privately owned or not, i believe the exemption clause does not offer immunity to companies for negligence but for liability that the insurance company has to pay. Moreover, enough content can be prearranged on signs and noticeboards to purpose as a warning that the company was not going to be liable in case of damages or theft in the absence of negligence as it serves as a useful solution. Therefore, it is the personal responsibility of truck drivers to take care of their vehicles[1]
Part B
Short Research Essay
The Parol Evidence Rule is an essential legal opinion that seeks to limit the degree of uncertainty between parties in regards to contract performance. Contract performance can be classified under a contract theory. The contract theory has a neither descriptive nor normative theory; it does not explain what the law is or what the law should be. A parole evidence rule posits that any written instrument for the intent of parties to manifest their mutual understanding can never be challenged either by contemporary or past evidence that demands modification or contradiction. Besides, the parole rule is a common law tradition with its origin in the middle ages, which stipulated a custom adoption for any written agreement between parties to seal a deal and make it unquestionable and authentic.
Moreover, the rule was used in the 16th-century court to interpret written will using evidence rather than using a system that proved contacts by witnesses. With the changing ties, there rose a need to implement written contracts making it a rule and not an exemption it was previously. Additionally, the parol evidence rule did spread, making writing be a form of the agreement already in existence. The said rule has goals such as promoting legal conviction, preventing fraud and perjury and backing justice and truth by law. Nonetheless, it also allows interpretation of the written agreement and dismisses defective and corrupt evidence.
However, the rule has its criticisms that include the rule being a source of confusion to contract law, the production of unintended results from its original principle. Furthermore, using two different approaches to the rule. Firstly, it relates to the parties’ consent, which indicates that writing an expression of the final agreement surpasses all prior understandings, and the commentator should honour it. Secondly, the quality of the evidence reflects the parties’ intention since interpretation is essential.
Thus, when associated parties in a claim present a written contract element such as the expressions, words, usages and terms have to undergo interpretation by the tribunal. Arguably, when the declaration of intent is ambiguous, despite the agreement presented as the final intent, a court must rely on words selected to resolve its ambiguity. Nevertheless, one can never be sure of the true meaning of a document by only using the said document since the result does not reflect the intentions accurately. Extrinsic evidence is therefore vital to the interpreter to assist in providing an understanding of the contract unless prohibited.
Furthermore, the importance of the rule is the making of contracts. Contracts in virtually an agreement between two or more parties, made in writing or by word of mouth, though a witness must be present; a contract is legally binding if both parties agree to the terms. For enforcement, the terms of an agreement are usually in written form and presented to both parties involved. The importance of contract signing is this; if, in any case, the other party fails to fulfil the terms of the agreement, then the affected party can file for noncompliance suit. Lawfully this is an act of breach of contract. In a court of law, the judge will be restricted to a written contract, which will act as evidence that such an agreement existed and the determination of what contract agreement was not complied with. After court determination, the preceding judge will write an enforcement order, which must be adhered to. The parole evidence rule is also applicable to matters of spoken contracts; this is an agreement that is not available in written form. However, in this kind of deal, the court usually has a rough time trying to determine the intention of the parties involved.
Moreover, parole rule is not anywhere close to being a criminal law. Besides, it is a rule contract doctrine that compels parties to form written rules and contracts as opposed to spoken words. For instance, if two people are having a dispute over a house that is to be sold, if the buyer and seller have a written contract agreement for sale, let us say $1,000,000. The buyer will have a disadvantage over the seller is they agreed the house would be bought at a subsidized amount or that the buyer was to exchange a piece of land for the home. This will ultimately work against the buyer in a court of law since what is done I not what was written in the contract. The parol rule only applies strictly to the information presented in the legal agreement.
The most important rule is that the law only applies when there is a comprehensive integration of the contract, which means that unmistakable implementation in black and white, suggesting the agreement that leaves no doubt that the parties intended it to be the final document. To determine if the contract is comprehensive, the courts will weigh in the circumstances and advice accordingly. The parole evidence, in a nutshell, is all about outside evidence and deals. However, depending on the situation, the new evidence can occasionally be introduced for defence.
Nevertheless, the parol evidence integrated into written form is not binding. The reason being, in case of unprofessionalism during composing of the contract, or typographical errors, which might cause misleading interpretations or clerical typos that are done intentionally in the treaty. This does not advocate for the primary intention of the two parties involved. Therefore, the court has the power to issue discretionary ruling applied to the parol evidence. The verdict can be as simple as the defendant presenting contradictory evidence, consisting of malicious intentions or fraud. Conclusively, according to the parol testimony, it can be ruled that the contract given is not applicable as it offers different arguments away from the original intention. The court, in certain circumstances, considers up-and-coming supplementary evidence, which does not take account of transcribed agreements as long as it does not refute the terms and preconditions of the first deal.
[1] Omines Internet bureau B.V. – http://www.omines.nl/. – An exclusion clause is a provision limiting the liability of one party to a contract to the other contracting party
The parol evidence rule — Judicial education centre; – In general, the parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations and agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the contractual terms of a written contract when the written contract is intended to be a complete and final expression of the parties’ agreement.
https://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/contract-law-tutorial/the-parol-evidence-rule