Business Law Case Study
Question 1
The law of contracts in Hong Kong binds the agreement between Ada and Ben. Notably, there seems to exist a promise from Ada, that she would buy Ben's car for a specified amount of money totaling to $80,000. Besides, the communication between the two suggests that Ben wants to sell the car for cash. The negotiations between Ben and Ada warrant the reference of a contract. However, there are considerations that Ada can make before filing a case of a breach of contract. The task to prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed there is a contract that exists as a result of the negotiations lies with Ada.
Notably, the Law of contract binds the negations if indeed the complainant proves that there was a contract. Thus, in advising Ada, the writer considers that there is evidence that both Ben and Ada enters into a contract of exchanging the car through the conversation. The conversation is through messages and voicemail. Therefore, Ada can prove that he did establish a legal relationship with Ben which would end by the sale of the car. Therefore, by the law of Hong Kong, the contract exists. The contract is made in writing as Ben and Ada did converse over the written messages and invoice. As a result, Ada has a case to file against before the court, and she should move with speed and initiate legal proceedings against Ben.In the matter before the Jury, Ada would prove his point terming Ben as the promisor. It is clear that Ben promises to sell Ada the car at a specified amount of money. However, Ben breaches the contract when he fails to sell the car. Moreover, in the contract, it is clear that Ada does not refuse to adhere to any term of the contract. The only term that a Judge may imply in the case to deny Ada the benefits of the contract. On the basis of the evidence, the legislation requires that the court compels the promisor (Ben) either to compensate the Promisee (Ada) for the disappointment or do as per the agreement.
On the other hand, Ben can argue that there was no promise between him and Ada. Moreover, Ben can claim to have had no recollection of what was going through his mind during the agreement. Besides, Ben can insist that the conversation between him and Ada is not a promise. At this point, the court considers the intention of the parties to establish the agreement. The Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap 284), provides that the promisee can only recover the damages if he/she proves that the statement of the Promisor is a promise or not (Fisher & Greenwood, 2011). Furthermore, Ben should convince the court that imposing the contract, would lead to violation of the public policy. The public policy requires that the payments of money amounting to the one he intends to sell the car be undertaken through the banking system and not through …
