Irish Business Law - Martin versus Jason - Essay Example

due Irish Business Law-Martin versus Jason In the daily running of businesses, situations arise between different parties to the transactions whose consequences are always of financial or economic loss. It is therefore necessary that agreements or simply binding contracts be put in place to safeguard against malice and unscrupulous practices. Such contracts can always be express or implied but in which the parties show a commitment to be bound by its terms (Keenan, 78). The losses or challenges that arise will always include one party failing to meet its obligations which lead to the other party failing to accomplish his objectives by either losing revenue or not being able to fulfill further demands which are dependent on the other party. Business law and such related legal requirements provides the frame work for the redress of such circumstances when they do occur as well as ascertaining whether the claims are justifiable apart from determining the amount of compensation if the situation warrants the compensation. There are always circumstances not foreseeable to both the contracting parties and therefore, it is not worth that the compensations are made and the laws consequently provide to cover such events. Martin, in a bid to sue Jason for the losses incurred and the eventual closure of the business will have to prove various circumstances under which the loss is related to the activities of Jason as well as establish that it was a fault in the execution of his part of the contract. As such the court will be able to rule on the sustainability of the claim and thus be able to determine the amount of compensation, if it comes to materialize. The actions of each party that could have perpetuated the failure are also a significant contribution. Breach of contracts can be very simple or very complex but will always either result into minor losses or extensive losses in which case one person may be forced to terminate the contract and sue for damage (Keenan, 63). In the case of Martin, the damage can be considered to be great although the supplies have resumed and Martin have not also attempt to terminate the contract and so may not be able to institute a case against Jason. Martin has only suggested loss of revenue for which he did not and has not informed Jason which might cause Jason to assume a state of comfort for Martin. The kind of contractual agreement between Martin and Jason presents a contract which is executionary and not executed and so each party should be able to terminate it at one point or the other, if according to the terms of agreement the other person has breached the contract. The problem that has presented itself in this case is one that Jason could have been able to foresee and prepare measures to mitigate it when it does occur (Keenan, 311). In this case the contract is not impossible to perform due to unforeseen circumstances but due to the negligence on the part of Jason which actually entitles Martin for compensation on the loss and goodwill the actions of Jason have caused him. Motor vehicles are items whose breakdown rate is frequent and so should always be considered as prone to such events. In this case, Jason, before committing to supply Martin with the fast foods should have considered and taken measures to cushion his customers against the same although Jason may argue that a situation of simultaneous breakdown of the two trucks was actually unforeseen. But since Martin seems not to have rescinded the contract when Jason failed to supply the goods during the first week of the problem, he may therefore be assumed to have consented to the proceedings and therefore need not sue as Jason will argue that he was not aware of the extent of the lack of supplies since His customer, Martin, had not communicated the same. The other complexity in this case arises due to the fact that Jason has resumed supplies to mean that he has not withdrawn from performing the contract but could have stopped to allow Martin clear his stocks which at least, he had managed to sell for one week period when there was no fresh supplies. Jason has not refused to perform his contractual obligations and based on the timeline of the contract which actually portrays the contract as executor, Jason is still within his contractual obligation since the contract required regular performance at certain specific times. The contract is on as Jason is actually supplying the foods and drinks as was agreed. The breach of contract in Martin versus Jason’s case is categorized as material since Jason was expected to deliver the goods every morning of everyday which actually makes time to be of greater essence. Late delivery even at later time is actually a breach of contract and so failing to deliver the goods for many damages is a serious and extensive breach of contract which will facilitate monetary compensations (Keenan, 84). Further, since Martin was forced to close the fast food counter as a result of the delays and that it affected the supply of newspapers which actually affected his sale, income and goodwill towards his customers, he may be compensated for damages. Martin can therefore seek for the contract terms to be absolutely enforced through the lawsuit since it is clear there is a breach of the contract to an appreciable degree which has resulted into greater losses on his side in which case he will be entitled to a remedy as the aggrieved party which can take the form of compensation or restitution of the contract. If Martin successful sues Jason then he will be entitled to compensatory damages aimed at reinstating him to the original financial and business position he was in before the breach. This will include the loss in revenue that incurred due to lack of sales for the period of closure as well as the effect of such closure on the sale and supply of newspapers. The court will also determine, for compensation, the amount lost in goodwill. In the case where determining the damages and such compensation through compensatory damages may not be sufficient to take up everything, the martin may consider on court order, specific performance (Keenan, 286). This is ordered where the damages may not be able to restore the non breaching party to the best possible position. Even if Martin was to be compensated for the damages including losses, the loss in market and goodwill may not be conveniently compensated. It may be hard to determine the customer base he would have attracted during the operations. The repayment on loan for acquiring the new machine also might end up affect his goodwill when he cannot pay in time. Further, it might be very difficult to attract customers back due to the irregularity they may associate with the business. If Martin will be able to prove the damages, the he will be entitled to unliquidated damages. Otherwise, in the event he may not be able to prove the damages then claim for nominal damages may suffice and in which case he is entitled to compensation either way. We can argue for Martin that his case is one for expectation of losses or loss of bargain and under this method, the courts will seek to restore his position before the damage as in the case of The Heron II of 1969 where damages were actually awarded for delay in delivery of goods, in this case, sugar to Basra (Keenan, 272). This is because both parties must have been aware of the impending fluctuation in the prices of sugar. Based on this, Martin may also be awarded damages since it is clear that anyone who deals or uses motor vehicles or trucks must be aware of the impending breakdowns and so should prepare to mitigate them and therefore the two parties must have been able to contemplate such which qualifies the claim to be reasonable. Under Irish Business Law, martin may be awarded damages based on the argument of pecuniary loss although there is a possibility of him being awarded the damages on the basis of non pecuniary loss. This is because the breach of contract has caused him the business reputation since he has not been able to provide his customers, a case which has led to a reduction in the supply of the newspapers and the consequent closure of the food counter. The reputation and the good will lost warrants damages. Failure to meet customer demands must have also caused distress in Martin, a ground on which damages can be awarded. However, Martin cannot expected awarded liquidated damages since the contract does not define any specific sum of money that is payable in case of a breach. Martin is in a case where he acquired funding to purchase a machine to use in the sale of foods and drinks. For the supply of fast foods he relied on the supplies from Jason who consequently fails due to the breakdown of his supply devices, the trucks. This results into extensive losses for Martin, who is then forced to close the food counter and therefore is not able to repay the loan used in the purchase of the machine. The business is further affected by fall in the proceeds from the parent business (Keenan, 123). It should be considered that the losses resulting to Jason are due to Jason’s failure to cushion and put in place mechanisms to take care of the anticipated uncertainties. Though Jason indicates that the trucks would repair and supply resumed in a week, this fails and goes for further three weeks which had to aggravate the problem. Since Jason was expected to supply the foods every morning, it is clear he has failed to owner is part of the contract and therefore responsible for the loss of revenue and tainted goodwill for Martin. In the event that Martin sues for damages, he has a strong case under the Irish business law since it is very possible to prove the losses. Work Cited Keenan, A?ine. Essentials of Irish business law. 4th ed. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 2004. Print. Read More