Requirements of a Legally Binding Contract Under English Law

...

As a result, the failure of one or any of the sisters not attending the finale amounts to a breach of contract that takes place when one of the individuals in the contract does not satisfy any or all of the stated stipulations as well as conditions. A violation is thus able to be seen here since failure to attend the finale will one party has not seen through the arranged duties (Williams 1982). Thus this is will then be taken to court where the judge shall decide if the agreement has been broken and compensations may be granted to Simon as the aggrieved party.

In consequence, devoid of any legal excuse, Kim, Khloe and/or Kourtney do not or decline to perform what is required of them under the contractual terms when performance has become due is prima facie a breach of contractor debilitate themselves from performing up to the latter, then a breach of contract will have occurred.

If one or all of the three sisters promise to attend each show including the finale but do not attend the finale then this is going to be a defective performance in the sense that they have undertaken to do one thing however, they do another that in essence is different, for instance in this case not attending up until the finale. Any kind of performance of the agreement that shall not satisfy all the agreed contractual terms shall under the law, institute a breach of the aforementioned agreement between Simon and the Kardashian sisters. The terms of this agreement decree how the agreement should be carried respectively.

- Remedies to Breach of Contract

The overall decree is that compensation in form of damages is to be awarded to Simon in case of a breach of contractual terms agreed upon beforehand. This works towards putting the aggrieved party in the position he was in before the agreement been executed conferring to the original provisos. Damages are envisioned to recompense the aggrieved entity for the loss that he/she has encountered due to the breach of contract. So as to institute a claim to considerable compensations for breach of contract, the aggrieved party has the onus to prove that: definite harm has been initiated by the breach of contract. That the kind of loss is acknowledged as extending a claim for damages as well as that the loss is not too far-flung.

The idea of a breach of agreement can be proven even though there exists no actual harm however, in such a scenario, there will be a chance to only claim nominal compensations. The fundamental principle is to put the innocent party monetarily, as close as is imaginable, back to the point he could have been in had the undertaking been satisfied in its entirety (Robinson v Harman [1848] 18 LJ Ex 202). An important point to note is that compensations are constructed upon the loss to the plaintiff and not the benefit to the respondent. This actually means that damages are intended to recompense for a proven loss but not to offer a complimentary advantage to the injured entity.

As a consequence, in the event that Kim, Khloe and Kourtney do not attend the finale show, then they lose the one million euros in fees as promised and also create an opportunity under the provisions of contract law for Simon to sue them for the breach of contractual terms agreed. It is important to include such a clause as to the legal consequences that shall befall the Kardashian sisters in case of a breach as well as for Simon to act according to the limits of the contractual terms. Ultimately, Simon can institute proceedings for damages and it does no matter that they attended all episodes before the finale. Their advocates might bring up the fact that their appearance in the preceding episodes will have definitely raised the quality and number of applications, as well as the ratings and number of viewers in addition to the increased revenue collected from global advertising. So Simon will indeed have acquired pecuniary growth and benefit as well as global recognition and thus to sue for damages will be in essence not suitable and as a result, the lawyers for Kim, Khloe and Kourtney may challenge this suit for the reason that Simon has actually been elevated financially and thus damages are not suitable for this case as they will actually elevate Simon from the fiscal position he was in.

Conclusion

With regard to making the most of the legal avenues available and to ensure that Kim, Khloe and Kourtney’s lawyers do not find a loophole and that Simon garners all privileges he can under the law as a result of breach of contract, then his lawyers should explicitly include a clause that the Kim, Khloe and Kourtney will lose the consideration in the form of one million euros if they skip out the season finale and that they are setting themselves up for a possible contractual lawsuit.

REFERENCE LIST

BOOKS

Burrows, A. 2016. A Restatement of the English Law of Contract. Paperback.

Williams, G. 1982. Learning the Law. Eleventh Edition. Stevens.

STATUTE LAW

The Unfair Contact Terms Act 1977 (Ucta) Section 11.

TABLE OF CASES

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.

Currie V Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex.

Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349.

ICS Ltd v West Bromwich [1998] 1 WLR 896.

Moran v University College Salford (No 2), The Times, November 23, 1993.

Robinson v Harman [1848] 18 LJ Ex 202.

Stover v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403.