Elements of Remedies of Contract Breach

Elements of Remedies of Contract Breach

Cases of breaching of contact are prevalent in judicial courts. Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley is one of the examples of breach of contract case. According to contract law, the remedy is a resolution that the court-ordered to one party that breaches that contract. Contract breach happens when one party to the contract has failed to fulfill his/her obligation as stipulated in the contract agreement. When a breach of contract occurs, one party gets affected, which is the non-breaching party. The non-breaching party, in this case, is called the injured party. Award of remedies are done purposelyfor restoring him/her to the state they would have been if the contract had stayed in its original form as both the parties agreed upon.Before grating remedies to the non-breaching, elements of breach of contract must be considered. The elements of remedies of contract breach, as seen from the Hallmark v. Murley case, include the existence of the agreement, performance by the complainant, performance failure by the defendant, and resultant damages to the complainant.

One of the elements of remedies to contract breach from the case Hallmark v. Murley is the contract existence. The complainant must prove to the court that there is a contract between the two parties. The agreement can either be written or oral or both (Parzefall & Jacqueline, 2011). Proving the existence of a contract requires that some components of the contract must be reviewed, which are offered, acceptance and consideration. One party must have made the offer and the other party must have accepted the offer. The consideration part of the contract is the legal term of the art that typically demands that the parties to the contract benefits by obtaining something of value (Rowan, 2012). Often time, consideration is something or benefit received, or it may also involve something given up, like a person paying one to stop doing an activity. In the Hallmark v. Murley case, there was a written agreement binding Murley and the company, where she agreed to stop working for eighteen months while maintaining confidentiality to the company’s business information, and not retaining any Hallmark’s business documents and records. In the separation contract also include the benefits. The non-compete clause in their separation was the main clause highlighting the issue of confidentiality.

Another element of the remedy of breach contract is the performance by the plaintiff. The performance of the complainant is very significant in determining the type of remedy the injured party receives. The plaintiff must demonstrate during the case hearing that they have performed their obligations as stipulated in their contract. To win the case and consequently have a remedy, the plaintiff must keep the end of his/her bargain (Rowan, 2012). He/she must ensure that the performance is according to the agreement, and there is no instance of the breach as this will enables him/her to defend the claim of the contract breach. However, it is common for the defendant to claim the plaintiff did not perform according to the contract, or there are cases of justifiable nonperformance on the plaintiff’s end. In the Hallmark v. Murley case, the defendant, Murley, claimed that under their separation agreement, Hallmark was not entitled to a return of payment since she fulfilled various materials terms highlighted in the contract, like the non-compete provision (Scheindlin & Orr, 2014)..

Performance failure by the respondent is also another element of contract breach remedy. The plaintiff must present a justifiable argument in court that the respondent failed to achieve the obligations of the contract. Since the plaintiff is the party making accusation, he/she must be able to justify the performance failure demonstrated by the respondent. The plaintiff can present an argument that the defendant acted in bad faith regarding the contract (Markovitz & Schwartz, 2011). Thus, there is a justification for the contract breach. Revisiting Hallmark v. Murley’s case, the argument or claim presented by the company highlights one main area where the Murley failed in performing her obligations under the contract. Presented with convincing evidence, the disclosure of the company’s business confidential information was the main accusation filed by the company. In their separation agreement, under the non-compete clause, Murley signed an agreement not to disclose the company’s information

The last element of a remedy of contract breach is the resulting damages to the petitioner. Losses or damages are subsequent after the respondent’s breach of contract. In seeking remedy, the plaintiff tries to recover the value of damages to get him/her back to the position they would be, had both parties performed the contract (Scheindlin & Orr, 2014). The damages that Hallmark Card’s, Inc. claimed it incurred, was lost of confidential business information to the competitor.

Based on the bits of evidence presented above, it can be concluded that court cases on breach of contract can result in various remedies. Before courts award remedies, multiple elements of contract breach must be considered. Some of the elements of remedies of contract breach, as seen from the Hallmark v. Murley case, are the contract existence, performance by the complainant, performance failure by the respondent, and resultant damages to the complainant. In contract breach cases, the non-breaching party is called the injured party. In most cases, he/she is the party that files legal suit, when he/she feels there is a justification that the other party has failed to fulfill obligations as required by the by contract.

References

Markovitz, D., & Schwartz, A. (2011). The Expectation Remedy and the Promissory Basis of       Contract. Suffolk UL Rev., 45, 799.

Parzefall, M. R., & Jacqueline, A. M. (2011). Making sense of psychological contract breach.        Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Rowan, S. (2012). Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the Protection   of performance. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Scheindlin, S. A., & Orr, N. M. (2014). The Adverse Inference Instruction after Revised Rule 37             (e): An Evidence-Base Proposal. Fordham L. Rev., 83, 1299.