So, terms of the contract can be defined as the statements that administrate the requirements and rights of the parties to the agreement. Theses are elements that bind the accord and if infringed, legal action may result (Deakin & Markins 2008) Terms can be explicit or implied.
Frustration of the contract is usually caused by reason like accidents, changes in statutes, health condition (illnesses) of one of the parties, interference from the third parties. Frustration of the contact is justification to non performance and automatically exonerates the accord with the exception of when the terms of the contact overrule this implied legitimate prerequisite. Nonetheless, frustration of contract cannot be cited as a reason for non performance in case the condition was predictable, and it's not applicable to some categories of contracts for instance insurance policies (Deakin & Markins 2008).
Case Law- Harry should understand that he is already in a contract with Ian unless Ian has officially indicated that he does not want the motorcycle anymore. Implied contract is the agreement enforceable by statute and it's as a result of conduct, assumed intentions, or as a result of applying the law principles of equity. For instance, implied contract is when one willingly and knowingly accepts imbursement from another party in conditions where this benefit is clearly not a gift (Lunney & Oliphant 2003). Therefore having agreed to sell the motorcycle to Ian and later on planning to sell it to James is a breach of contract. Harry should find out from Ian if he is still interested in acquiring the motorcycle before making other plans for it.
Tort of Negligence: is described as the breach of responsibility or one party failing to exercise the standard of care that is necessary by statute, causing damage to the other party to whom the responsibility was owed. Negligence has become the most essential of the Morden torts. This is because the reported cases of this kind are increasing very fast and due to the fact that the principle underlying it is of wide and general application (Deakin & Markins 2008)
In tort law, one can be responsible for the damages caused if he/she owed the claimant duty of care. Duty of care is that legitimate responsibility that is obligatory to an individual or parties in question that demand them to adhere or comply with the standard of reasonable care whenever carrying duties or any activities that may predictably cause damage to others. In fact, this is usually the first element that has to be established for a claim for negligence can be filed (Deakin & Markins 2008)
The claimant cannot claim that there is liability in law unless he/she is able to establish that he/she was owed the duty of care and that that duty owed was infringed. The defendant will have violated the duty towards the claimant if his/her conduct has fallen short what the standard care is as this is what was expected to be met in