Variation of Contract Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Variation of Contract - Essay Example This is the command of the doctrine of consideration. Thus courts sometimes apparently are prepared to take up consideration instead of questioning its needs.1 Exchange thus makes up the terra cognita of contractual responsibilities. Presented promises are often passed on to the private sphere of influence2. Their breach is made good with only a moral sanction. But in the laws of employment immediately post decision of Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland,3 this conventional dissimilarity is under stress.4 With regard to Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 the case was for payment of a debt which the company Selectmove owed to the crown. In order to escape payment of the debt the company was wound up. The question to be discussed is whether the debt was a disputed one or not For this the law of estoppel has to be understood. "Where by his words or conduct one party to a transaction makes to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which is intended to affect the legal relations between them (whether contractual or otherwise), or was reasonably understood by the other party to have that effect, and, before it is withdrawn, the other party acts upon it, altering his or her position so that it would be inequitable to permit the first party to withdraw the promise, the party making the promise or assurance will not be permi... Meanwhile the other party will most likely continue with the performance of the contract.When there is a counter offer then silence on the part of the creative offeror will not normally form an acceptance. But it will be considered as an acceptance in case of an offer without time limit. It may be construed as acceptance if the original offeror had objected to some of the extra terms which the counter offer may contain. In cases of ambiguous offer where the offeree communicates to the offeror about his understanding of the offer then such a communication will almost certainly result in a counter-offer. Under such circumstances silence will make up acceptance on the part of the offeror6. Some of the recent cases manifest the dampening, or elimination, of a quiet a lot of the uncertain philosophies or maxims which have conventionally confined the functioning of the doctrines of estoppel. This has actually limited an open challenge to the importance of the agreement meant to produce legal relations and confirmed by circumstance as the means of imposing promissory responsibilities. In Walton's Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher,7 the majority8 in the High Court agreed that Maher, a constructor, who was negotiating a contract with the appellant, Walton's. Under the agreement it was decided that Maher would destroy buildings on the ground which he possessed and then build and rent to Walton's a building to its stipulation. This brought reliance on the doctrine of promissory estoppel when Maher destroyed the old buildings accepting that a contract between the parties would be arrived at.9 The majority were not stressed by the alleged convention that such rules of evidence do not find a reason for action, or by the obligation of