Business Law: Breach of Verbal Promises- A Context to Australian Court - Essay Example

? Business Law: Breach of Verbal Promises- A Context to Australian Court of Instr7utor] of Business Law:Breach of Verbal Promises- A Context to Australian Court Synopsis: This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned statement regarding breaching the oral or verbal promises with the help of legal approaches to breach namely Parole evidence rule and collateral contract. The paper is about the concepts of legalities which fall under the common law being practiced in Australia. Considering the business sphere and daily dealings among enterprises, it is important to take the agreement written or oral under evolution and exceptions. The claims to be made in the paper will be proved with the help of legal cases which have been solved by applying the legal approaches of Parole evident rule and collateral contract. Introduction: Business dealings are made among enterprises by large each day which makes it evident that there needs to be a jurisdiction that would help the parties agree and abide by the clauses in the agreement. It is for this reason that business law is being practiced by the common law. In return common law is being applied to majority of the states making it liable for organizations all around the world to sign agreements and follow the legalities. Considering the legal courts of Australia, It would not be incorrect to state that it has provided the business enterprises many benefits regarding restitution and contracts. However, there are different types of contracts with exceptions which are being practiced and legally prosecuted. In this context, the written contracts in Australia are provided with a lot of remedies in case the contract is breached. But verbal promises that have not been included in the written contracts are not solved in case breached. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned statement regarding breaching the oral or verbal promises with the help of legal approaches to breach namely Parole evidence rule and collateral contract. Furthermore, it would also be discussed in the paper whether Australia should provide remedies in case any verbal promise, not noted in the written contract, is breached or not. The claims will be made with the help of legal cases which have been solved by applying the legal approaches of Parole evident rule and collateral contract. Definitions to the terms: Breach--violation of the law which is written or oral in nature. Plaintiff-- a person or a party that would file a lawsuit against the violating party Defendant--- a person or a party against whom the case is filed. Points of Focus: Parole evident rule and exception followed by the suitable cases Collateral contracts and definition with the suitable cases Australian Courts and Remedy to breach of Parole evidence rule: It is an Australian law which is applied in case it is a matter of a written contract. Within the approach of parole evidence rule, it is evident that the court will note that all the clauses which are written or mentioned in the agreement are carefully following the signed affirmation of both the parties. This approach completely denies in case either of the party proposes a claim which is verbal in nature. The Australian court represents jurisdiction that completely disqualifies any verbal or oral promise making it much easier for the parties and the court to subject litigation if notice in any case1 The reason behind employing this legal approach in Australia for the business agreements is merely because it is able to save a lot of time. Another reason behind setting up the approach of parole evidence rule exemplifies the prevention of any faulty statement coming from either of the parties agreed upon the agreements. There has been a common ground of deviation noted in most of the legal business cases. All such cases have marked statements which were put forward by the parties in order to bring deviation the focal point of the agreement. In other words, it could be said that at times either of the parties is more likely to override the verbal promise. Thus, Australian court provides no remedies to cases which are filed following the parole evidence rule2. It will not be incorrect to mention that Australian courts would not provide any remedy to the breach of oral promise. However, it should be noted that legalities have exception which may be uncommon in some cases. Considering the parole evidence rule, there are numbers of exception which may defend the verbal breach3. Exception to Parole evidence rule: The most evident exception to parole evidence rule is that in case there are some mistakes in the contract then verbal or oral additions can be made to the contract. This is helpful because mistakes are needed to be corrected so that there are no ambiguities. It should be noted that the oral promises which are made or additionally added in the contract are to be fully signed by both the parties.  Kraftco Corp. v. Kolbus, 1 Ill.App.3d 653, 638 can be cited as a powerful case explaining that the plaintiffs and the defendants need to mutually accept of affirm the oral promises made in order to correct any mistake in the contract4 Another exception is of cases where explanation or interpretation of the existing clauses is needed. This means that in case the clauses are signed between parties without the stance to understand the legal terms then there could be a possibility for the submission of extrinsic or oral promises. It should be noted that these extrinsic evidences are merely used as interpretive means. This exception is completely possible and in practice in the US civil law which is being practices on supposition of specific states. An exemplary case is of Wagner Excello Foods, Inc. v Fearn International, Inc., 235 Ill.App.3d 224, 229 (1st Dist. 1992). It has also been noted that cases where the instance of breach of verbal promise is noted, the plaintiff needs to take assurance of the verbal claim. In order to understand this exception, it is easier to take the case of Van Den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR 114. The contract in this case was signed when both the purchaser and seller were not ready in terms of mentioning all the evidences. As per the conversations, the extermination of white ants was confirmed by the seller. However, the purchaser later found out that the seller has merely breaches the contract as white ants were not eradicated at all. This notes that it was the fault of the purchaser to note down the white ants assurance promise before signing the contract. Thus claim against the seller remained disadvantageous in terms of the purchaser5 Collateral Contracts: Another legal approach that has been selected to affirm the statement claiming that Australian courts do not provide remedies for cases of breach of verbal promises is collateral contracts. Before understanding how this rule fits the above statement, it is more significant to analyze collateral contracts6. Collateral contracts are often defined as agreements which are undertaken into two steps. This means that major agreement in such a deal is written contracts while the second form is oral promise. Another underlying aspect of collateral contract is that if one party proves in front of the court that the agreement was merely signed as a consideration to the verbal promise then the court can prosecute the claim. JJ Savage & Sons v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435 © proves to be an easier to understand yet a relevant case. In this case, it was noted that a car was sold with the promise that the car will be high in terms of speed. However, as the purchase was undertaken, the promise proved to be breached7 This case as presented to the court could not bring the plaintiff to the winning side because the plaintiff did not get any assurance8. But in case the contract was collateral in nature then it would have been advantageous for the plaintiff. This means that if the plaintiff was able to prove that contact of purchase was merely signed because the car would be higher in terms of speed then the court would have punished the defendant9. In such cases, it is suggested that collateral contracts are signed so that the verbal promises are kept under the jurisdiction as a prosecutable stance of the legality. However, there are exceptions with this rule as well. It notes that the collateral contracts cannot be prosecuted until or unless the clauses of the written contract are almost same as the verbal promises made10 Provision of Remedies – Should or should not? Considering the above noted exceptions and the legal approaches to the pointer of breach of verbal promises, I would suggest or claim that there is no need of a remedy by Australian courts in this regard. The reason behind claiming such a statement is because there have been a number of cases which have noted deviation. This is merely done when one party does not abide by the rule and clause of the contact11. In other words, it could be said that many companies which are already noting losses tried to override the verbal promises. As there is no evidence to the verbal promises, it is much crucial to provide solution to such cases. It is the legality that the courts are able to provide justice to all by carefully noting the parties deserving a consent or prosecution. In simpler words, it is the duty of the court to prevent such parties to override the statement12. Also there are many lawmakers which have marked the need of remedies for the verbal promises. But seemingly, it has been noticed that with the aid of remedies, it will be impossible for the Australian courts to manage the lawsuit cases because of the deviation. It is because of this reason that most of the cases in business law are submitted under the legal approach of parole evidence rule. Furthermore, I would also note that there are many exceptions to which the present legal approaches are being applied. With the aid of such exceptions, it is more than enough for the legal authorities to prosecute such cases. If there will be an open prosecution and open hand remedies to the oral promises then it will be quiet difficult for the investigative forces to mark the evidences13. Consequently, deviations are to be expected by either of the parties. Thus, following the parole evidence rule will help the parties follow their respective agreements. In case more exceptions will be added in context of the verbal promise then it is being predicted that increased chaos will be marked. The current common law is more efficient in terms of managing or determining any overriding of the verbal promises14. In simpler words, it can be said that promises which are not added in the written contracts or are not even closer to the instances of the clauses in the written contracts, cannot be prosecuted or even consider as evidence based clause for the Australian courts to prosecute. It should be noted that similar guidelines are also common in other countries as common law is being practiced in many countries by large (Pendleton 2009). Bibliography Blum, B., 2007. Contracts: Examples & Explanations. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. Boundy, C., 2010. Business Contracts Handbook. New York: Gower Publishing, Ltd.,. Dabydeen, S., 2004. Legal And Regulatory Framework: For Business In The Uk. Washington DC.: iUniverse. Delaney, P. and Whittington, O., 2010. Wiley CPA Exam Review 2011, Regulation, Volume 4. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Fisher, M. and Greenwood, D., 2007. Contract Law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Gibsonm, A and Kelsen, I., 1989. Essentials of Australian business law. New York: Pitman. Gillies, P., 1988. Concise Contract Law. New York: Federation Press. Latimer, P., 2010. Australian Business Law. Melbourne: CCH Australia Limited. Monahan, G., 2001. Essential Contract Law. Washington DC.: Routledge. Pendleton, V., 2009. Australian Business Law. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Rose, A., Leibowitz, D. & Magnus, A., 2010. Getting Out of a Contract: A Practical Guide for Business. New York: Gower Publishing, Ltd. And, M., 1977. Evidence and Proof in Arbitration. San Francisco: Cornell University Press. Smyth, J., 1985. Australian Business Law. Sydney: Prentice-Hall of Australia. Stone, R., 2011. The Modern Law of Contract. Chicago: Taylor & Francis. Vickery, R. and Flood, M., 2012. Australian Business Law: Compliance and Practice. Melbourne: Pearson Australia. Read More