Contract Law Case Study of Marvin with ACME Electrical

Question: Contract Law Scenario Marvin has a signed contract with ACME electrical testing, it is agreed that ACME will test the electrical equipment in his hotel (including TV's) every 6 months for a fixed amount of $300.00. ACME have just attended and Marvin finds out that they have not tested any of the TVs in the hotel and only half the equipment. Using case law in support outline the legal argument each party might use and reach a conclusion on the likely result. Answer: In the present scenario it can be seen that Marvin has entered into a contract with ACME which is an electric equipment testing company, It was decided in the contract that ACME will test the equipment belonging to Marvins hotel and it included television sets as well, the contract was worth $300and ACME would do it in every six months, but on inquiry it was found out that the contract was not properly performed because all the television sets were left unchecked and even half of the hotel equipment was not checked. Thus the final outcome of this event is required to be ascertained The following case can be resolved using the case study Reviving Jacob Youngs, INC v Kent, this case was regarding material breach of contract, in the following circumstances the contract can said to be materially breach was decided that When the occurrence or performance of the contract depends on that event and the amount of loss or inconvenience caused to the aggrieved party, It is also measured by the amount of compensation that can be received by the aggrieved party towards the indemnification of the loss caused by the breach and the forfeiture which the party failing to perform the contract would suffer and finally The possibility of the party failing to perform the contract to perform it in the right manner in future or is there any assurance In the case of National Power Plc v United Gas Co Ltd (1998) it was decided that the innocent party would lose way too much thus this case law can be applied to the following case in the following case ACME has not performed more substantial part of the contract as it can be seen that none of the television sets and most of the equipment has not been tested, for it was mentioned that ACME would be paid $300 for the purpose of testing the equipment in every six months which included the television sets. In the case of Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd (2006) it was seen that the innocent party can come out of the contract as well as sue the other party for damages Marvin can sue ACME in the court of law for material breach of the contract as substantial part has not been performed by ACME, thus he can sue the company for paying him the damages as nothing has been mentioned about the re performance of the contract, thus he can claim the money he paid to the company, there is no mention about the intention of ACME i.e. was the breach intentional or it was not intentional and it was an innocent mistake, thus Marvin can plead to the court that the breach was intentional. On the other hand ACME in its defense can raise the following points in the court i.e. the breach was unintentional, the contract would be performed again in a better manner and It was an immaterial breach and would pay Marvin the rest of the amount Thus the above mentioned points can be raised by ACME in the court of law for its defense. If the former proves his point in the court then ACME has to give back all the amount taken by it to Marvin and thus the contract would be cancelled and ACME would not get the fees for testing the equipment in Marvin. If ACME can prove that the breach was immaterial than it has to pay the amount for which the work has not been done by it. This it can be said that options have been provided to both the parties in the contract and they can use them in their favor in the court of law (Van der Warden, Natalie, 2013). So it can be finally concluded by saying that there has been breach of contract whether material or immaterial would be decided by the court upon viewing the facts of the case References 1. Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business law, (Pearson Australia, 7th edition, 2013)2. Baldwin, Robert, Martin Cave and Martin Lodge, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2012)3. Graw, Stephen, An Introduction to the Law of Contract(Lawbook, 6th ed, 2008)4. Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd (2006) 2 CPD5. Jacob Youngs, INC v Kent (1997) 1 KB6. National Power Plc v United Gas Co Ltd (1998)