مختصری بر متون حقوقی (حقوق قراردادها ) به کوشش سعید صالح احمدی ۳

Consideration and estoppel
Main articles: Consideration and estoppel
Consideration is known as &#۰۳۹;the price of a promise&#۰۳۹; and is a controversial requirement for contracts under common law. It is not necessary in some common law or civil law systems,[۱۳] and is considered by some to be unnecessary as the requirement of intention to create legal relations by both parties meets the same requirement under contract. The reason that both exist in common law jurisdictions is thought by leading scholars to be the result of the combining by ۱۹th century judges of two distinct threads: first the consideration requirement was at the heart of the action of assumpsit, which had grown up in the Middle Ages and remained the normal action for breach of a simple contract in England & Wales until ۱۸۸۴, when the old forms of action were abolished; secondly, the notion of agreement between two or more parties as being the essential legal and moral foundation of contract in all legal systems, promoted by the ۱۸th century French writer Pothier in his Traite des Obligations, much read (especially after translation into English in ۱۸۰۵) by English judges and jurists. The latter chimed well with the fashionable will theories of the time, especially John Stuart Mill&#۰۳۹;s influential ideas on free will, and got grafted on to the traditional common law requirement for consideration to ground an action in assumpsit.[۱۴]
The idea is that both parties to a contract must bring something to the bargain, that both parties must confer some benefit or detriment (for example, money, however in some cases money will not suffice as consideration - e.g., when one party agrees to make part payment of a debt in exchange for being released from the full amount[۱۵]). This can be either conferring an advantage on the other party, or incurring some kind of detriment or inconvenience towards oneself. Three rules govern consideration.
• Consideration must be real, but need not be adequate. For instance, agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract.[۱۶] While consideration need not be adequate, contracts in which the consideration of one party greatly exceeds that of another may nevertheless be held invalid for lack of real consideration. In such cases, the fact that the consideration is exceedingly inadequate can be evidence that there was no consideration at all. Such contracts may also be held invalid for other reasons such as fraud, duress, or being contrary to public policy. In some situations, a collateral contract may exist, whereby the existence of one contract provides consideration for another. Critics say consideration can be so small as to make the requirement of any consideration meaningless.
• Consideration must not be from the past. For instance, in Eastwood v. Kenyon,[۱۷] the guardian of a young girl obtained a loan to educate the girl and to improve her marriage prospects. After her marriage, her husband promised to pay off the loan. It was held that the guardian could not enforce the promise because taking out the loan to raise and educate the girl was past consideration—it was completed before the husband promised to repay it.
• Consideration must move from the promisee. For instance, it is good consideration for person A to pay person C in return for services rendered by person B. If there are joint promisees, then consideration need only to move from one of the promisees.
Civil law systems take the approach that an exchange of promises, or a concurrence of wills alone, rather than an exchange in valuable rights is the correct basis. So if you promised to give me a book, and I accepted your offer without giving anything in return, I would have a legal right to the book and you could not change your mind about giving me it as a gift. However, in common law systems the concept of culpa in contrahendo, a form of &#۰۳۹;estoppel&#۰۳۹;, is increasingly used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.[۱۸] Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that provides for the creation of legal obligations if a party has given another an assurance and the other has relied on the assurance to his detriment. A number of commentators have suggested that consideration be abandoned, and estoppel be used to replace it as a basis for contracts.[۱۹] However, legislation, rather than judicial development, has been touted as the only way to remove this entrenched common law doctrine. Lord Justice Denning famously stated that "The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind."[۲۰]
See also: Consideration under English law and Consideration under American law
Intention to be legally bound
Main article: Intention to be legally bound
There is a presumption for commercial agreements that parties intend to be legally bound (unless the parties expressly state that they do not want to be bound, like in heads of agreement). On the other hand, many kinds of domestic and social agreements are unenforceable on the basis of public policy, for instance between children and parents. One early example is found in Balfour v. Balfour.[۲۱] Using contract-like terms, Mr. Balfour had agreed to give his wife £۳۰ a month as maintenance while he was living in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Once he left, they separated and Mr. Balfour stopped payments. Mrs. Balfour brought an action to enforce the payments. At the Court of Appeal, the Court held that there was no enforceable agreement as there was not enough evidence to suggest that they were intending to be legally bound by the promise.
The case is often cited in conjunction with Merritt v. Merritt.[۲۲] Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v. Balfour because Mr. and Mrs. Merritt, although married again, were estranged at the time the agreement was made. Therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations.
Third parties
Main article: Third parties
The doctrine of privity of contract means that only those involved in striking a bargain would have standing to enforce it. In general this is still the case, only parties to a contract may sue for the breach of a contract, although in recent years the rule of privity has eroded somewhat and third party beneficiaries have been allowed to recover damages for breaches of contracts they were not party to. There are two times where third party beneficiaries are allowed to fall under the contract. The duty owed test looks to see if the third party was agreeing to pay a debt for the original party. The intent to benefit test looks to see if circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance. Any defense allowed to parties of the original contract extend to third party beneficiaries.[۷۴] A recent example is in England, where the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act ۱۹۹۹ was introduced.
Formalities and writing
Main article: Statute of frauds
Contrary to common wisdom, an exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. A spoken contract should be called an oral contract, which might be considered a subset of verbal contracts. Any contract that uses words, spoken or written, is a verbal contract. Thus, all oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts. This is in contrast to a "non-verbal, non-oral contract," also known as "a contract implied by the acts of the parties", which can be either implied in fact or implied in law.
Most jurisdictions have rules of law or statutes which may render otherwise valid oral contracts unenforceable. This is especially true regarding oral contracts involving large amounts of money or real estate. For example, in the U.S., generally speaking, a contract is unenforceable if it violates the common law statute of frauds or equivalent state statutes which require certain contracts to be in writing. An example of the above is an oral contract for the sale of a motorcycle for US$۵,۰۰۰ in a jurisdiction which requires a contract for the sale of goods over US $۵۰۰ to be in writing to be enforceable. The point of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent false allegations of the existence of contracts that were never made, by requiring formal (i.e. written) evidence of the contract. However, a common remark is that more frauds have been committed through the application of the Statute of Frauds than have ever been prevented. Contracts that do not meet the requirements of common law or statutory Statutes of Frauds are unenforceable, but are not necessarily thereby void. However, a party unjustly enriched by an unenforceable contract may be required to provide restitution for unjust enrichment. Statutes of Frauds are typically codified in state statutes covering specific types of contracts, such as contracts for the sale of real estate.
In Australia and many, if not all, jurisdictions which have adopted the common law of England, for contracts subject to legislation equivalent to the Statute of Frauds[۲۳], there is no requirement for the entire contract to be in writing. Although for property transactions there must be a note or memorandum evidencing the contract, which may come into existence after the contract has been formed. The note or memorandum must be signed in some way, and a series of documents may be used in place of a single note or memorandum. It must contain all material terms of the contract, the subject matter and the parties to the contract. In England and Wales, the common law Statute of Frauds is only now in force for guarantees, which must be evidenced in writing, although the agreement may be made orally. Certain other kinds of contract must be in writing or they are void, for instance, for sale of land under s. ۵۲, Law of Property Act ۱۹۲۵.
If a contract is in a written form, and somebody signs the contract, then the person is bound by its terms regardless of whether they have read it or not,[۲۴] provided the document is contractual in nature.[۲۵] Furthermore, if a party wishes to use a document as the basis of a contract, reasonable notice of its terms must be given to the other party prior to their entry into the contract.[۲۶] This includes such things as tickets issued at parking stations.
See also: Non est factum
[edit] Bilateral v. unilateral contracts

Unilateral contract of adhesion on timekeeping ticket dispensed by vending machine at parking lot entrance
Contracts may be bilateral or unilateral. A bilateral contract, is an agreement in which each of the parties to the contract makes a promise or promises to the other party. For example, in a contract for the sale of a home, the buyer promises to pay the seller $۲۰۰,۰۰۰ in exchange for the seller&#۰۳۹;s promise to deliver title to the property.
In a unilateral contract, only one party to the contract makes a promise. A typical example is the reward contract: A promises to pay a reward to B if B finds A&#۰۳۹;s dog. B is not obliged to find A&#۰۳۹;s dog, but A is obliged to pay the reward to B if B finds the dog. The consideration for the contract here is B&#۰۳۹;s reliance on A&#۰۳۹;s promise, or B giving up his legal right to do whatever he wanted at the time he was engaged in the finding of the dog.
In this example, the finding of the dog is a condition precedent to A&#۰۳۹;s obligation to pay, although it is not a legal condition precedent, because technically no contract here has arisen until the dog is found (because B has not accepted A&#۰۳۹;s offer until he finds the dog, and a contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration), and the term "condition precedent" is used in contract law to designate a condition of a promise in a contract. For example, if B promised to find A&#۰۳۹;s dog, and A promised to pay B when the dog was found, A&#۰۳۹;s promise would have a condition attached to it, and offer and acceptance would already have occurred. This is a situation in which a condition precedent is attached to a bilateral contract.
Condition precedents can also be attached to unilateral contracts, however. This would require A to require a further condition to be met before he pays B for finding his dog. So, for example, A could say "If anyone finds my dog, and the sky falls down, I will give that person $۱۰۰. In this situation, even if the dog is found by B, he would not be entitled to the $۱۰۰ until the sky falls down. Therefore the sky falling down is a condition precedent to A&#۰۳۹;s duty being actualized, even though they are already in a contract, since A has made an offer and B has accepted.
An offer of a unilateral contract may often be made to many people (or &#۰۳۹;to the world&#۰۳۹;) by means of an advertisement. In that situation, acceptance will only occur on satisfaction of the condition (such as the finding of the offeror&#۰۳۹;s dog). If the condition is something that only one party can perform, both the offeror and offeree are protected – the offeror is protected because he will only ever be contractually obliged to one of the many offerees; and the offeree is protected, because if she does perform the condition, the offeror will be contractually obliged to pay her.
In unilateral contracts, the requirement that acceptance be communicated to the offeror is waived. The offeree accepts by performing the condition, and the offeree&#۰۳۹;s performance is also treated as the price, or consideration, for the offeror&#۰۳۹;s promise.
The offeror is master of the offer; it is he who decides whether the contract will be unilateral or bilateral. A bilateral contract is one in which there are duties on both sides, rights on both sides, and consideration on both sides. If an offeror makes an offer such as "If you promise to paint my house, I will give you $۱۰۰," this is a bilateral contract once the offeree accepts. Each side has promised to do something, and each side will get something in return for what they have done.
Uncertainty, incompleteness and severance
If the terms of the contract are uncertain or incomplete, the parties cannot have reached an agreement in the eyes of the law.[۲۷] An agreement to agree does not constitute a contract, and an inability to agree on key issues, which may include such things as price or safety, may cause the entire contract to fail. However, a court will attempt to give effect to commercial contracts where possible, by construing a reasonable construction of the contract.[۲۸]
Courts may also look to external standards, which are either mentioned explicitly in the contract[۲۹] or implied by common practice in a certain field.[۳۰] In addition, the court may also imply a term; if price is excluded, the court may imply a reasonable price, with the exception of land, and second-hand goods, which are unique.
If there are uncertain or incomplete clauses in the contract, and all options in resolving its true meaning have failed, it may be possible to sever and void just those affected clauses if the contract includes a severability clause. The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test—whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clauses.
See also: Contra proferentem
Contractual terms
Main article: Contractual term
A contractual term is "[a]ny provision forming part of a contract"[۳۱]. Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, breach of which can give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal weight as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.
Boilerplate
As discussed in Tina L. Stark&#۰۳۹;s Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate, when lawyers refer to a “boilerplate” provision, they are referring to any standardized, “one size fits all” contract provision. But lawyers also use the term in a more narrow context to refer to certain provisions that appear at the end of the contract. Typically, these provisions tell the parties how to govern their relationship and administer the contract. Although often thought to be of secondary importance, these provisions have significant business and legal consequences.[۳۲] Common provisions include the governing law provision, venue, assignment and delegation provisions, waiver of jury trial provisions, notice provisions, and force majeure provisions.[۳۳]
Classification of term
• Condition or Warranty.[۳۴] Conditions are terms which go to the very root of a contract. Breach of these terms repudiates the contract, allowing the other party to discharge the contract. A warranty is not so imperative so the contract will subsist after a warranty breach. Breach of either will give rise to damages.
It is an objective matter of fact whether a term goes to the root of a contract. By way of illustration, an actress&#۰۳۹; obligation to perform the opening night of a theatrical production is a condition,[۳۵] whereas a singers obligation to perform during the first three days of rehearsal is a warranty.[۳۶]
Statute may also declare a term or nature of term to be a condition or warranty; for example the Sale of Goods Act ۱۹۷۹ s۱۵A[۳۷] provides that terms as to title, description, quality and sample (as described in the Act) are conditions save in certain defined circumstances.
• Innominate term. Lord Diplock, in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd,[۳۸] created the concept of an innominate term, breach of which may or not go to the root of the contract depending upon the nature of the breach. Breach of these terms, as with all terms, will give rise to damages. Whether or not it repudiates the contract depends upon whether legal benefit of the contract has been removed from the innocent party. Megaw LJ, in ۱۹۷۰, preferred the legal certainty of using the classic categories of condition or warranty.[۳۹] This was interpreted by the House of Lords as merely restricting its application in Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v Hansen-Tangen.[۴۰]
Status as a term
Status as a term is important as a party can only take legal action for the non fulfillment of a term as opposed to representations or mere puffery. Legally speaking, only statements that amount to a term create contractual obligations. There are various factor that a court may take into account in determining the nature of a statement. In particular, the importance apparently placed on the statement by the parties at the time the contract is made is likely to be significant. In Bannerman v. White[۴۱] it was held a term of a contract for sale and purchase of hops that they had not been treated with sulphur, since the buyer made very explicit his unwillingness to accept hops so treated, saying that he had no use for them. The relative knowledge of the parties may also be a factor, as in Bissett v. Wilkinson[۴۲] in which a statement that farmland being sold would carry ۲۰۰۰ sheep if worked by one team was held merely a representation (it was also only an opinion and therefore not actionable as misrepresentation). The reason this was not a term was that the seller had no basis for making the statement, as the buyer knew, and the buyer was prepared to rely on his own and his son&#۰۳۹;s knowledge of farming.
Implied terms
A term may either be express or implied. An express term is stated by the parties during negotiation or written in a contractual document. Implied terms are not stated but nevertheless form a provision of the contract.
Terms implied in fact
Terms may be implied due to the facts of the proceedings by which the contract was formed. In the Australian case of BP Refinery Westernport v. Shire of Hastings[۴۳] the UK Privy Council proposed a five stage test to determine situations where the facts of a case may imply terms (this only applies to formal contracts in Australia).[۴۴] However, the English Court of Appeal sounded a note of caution with regard to the BP case in Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd[۴۵] in which the Master of the Rolls described the test as "almost misleading" in its simplicity.[۴۶] The classic tests have been the "business efficacy test" and the "officious bystander test". The first of these was proposed by Lord Justice Bowen in The Moorcock.[۴۷] This test requires that a term can only be implied if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract to avoid such a failure of consideration that the parties cannot as reasonable businessmen have intended. But only the most limited term should then be implied - the bare minimum to achieve this goal. The officious bystander test derives its name from the judgment of Lord Justice Mackinnon in Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries (۱۹۲۶) Ltd[۴۸] but the test actually originates in the judgment of Lord Justice Scrutton in Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd[۴۹] This test is that a term can only be implied in fact if it is such a term that had an "officious bystander" listening to the contract negotiations suggested that they should include this term the parties would "dismiss him with a common &#۰۳۹;Oh of course!&#۰۳۹;". It is at least questionable whether this is truly a separate test or just a description of how one might go about arriving at a decision on the basis of the business efficacy test.
Some jurisdictions, notably Australia, Israel and India, imply a term of good faith into contracts. A final way in which terms may be implied due to fact is through a previous course of dealing or common trade practice. The Uniform Commercial Code of the United States also imposes a duty of good faith in performance and enforcement of contracts covered by the Code, which cannot be derogated from.
Terms implied in law
These are terms that have been implied into standardized relationships. Instances of this are quite numerous, especially in employment contracts and shipping contracts.
Common law
• Liverpool City Council v. Irwin[۵۰] established a term to be implied into all contracts between tenant and landlord in multi-storey blocks that the landlord is obliged to take reasonable care to keep the common areas in a reasonable state of repair.
• Wong Mee Wan v Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd.[۵۱] established that when a tour operator contracts to for the sale of goods.
These terms will be implied into all contracts of the same nature as a matter of law.
Statute law
The rules by which many contracts are governed are provided in specialized statutes that deal with particular subjects. Most countries, for example, have statutes which deal directly with sale of goods, lease transactions, and trade practices. For example, most American states have adopted Article ۲ of the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates contracts for the sale of goods. The most important legislation implying terms under United Kingdom law are the Sale of Goods Act ۱۹۷۹, the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations ۲۰۰۰ and the Supply of Goods and Services Act ۱۹۸۲ which imply terms into all contracts whereby goods are sold or services provided.
See also: Good faith
Coercive vs voluntary contractive exchanges
There are a few ways of determining whether a contract has been coerced or is voluntary:
• Moral consideration: Objective consideration of right or wrong outside of the objective cause, or the perceived cause. Example: X occurs everyday at ۵ pm. X is wrong. Anything that avoids X is good; allowing X, even if all parties agree, is bad.
• Phenomenological consideration - what models did the participants have which influenced the perception of what was to occur or what had occurred. Example: I observe X, Y every day at ۵ pm. I contract against X. Today I did / did not see Y occur.
• Statistical consideration - did the participants have a statistical prediction, likelihood of an event occurring which is covered by the contract. Example: X happens every day at ۵ pm, I enter a contract to avoid X. X does or does not occur.
Setting aside the contract
There can be three different ways in which contracts can be set aside. A contract may be deemed &#۰۳۹;void&#۰۳۹;, &#۰۳۹;voidable&#۰۳۹; or &#۰۳۹;unenforceable&#۰۳۹;. Voidness implies that a contract never came into existence. Voidability implies that one or both parties may declare a contract ineffective at their wish. Unenforceability implies that neither party may have recourse to a court for a remedy. Rescission is a term which means to take a contract back.
Misrepresentation
Main article: Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
There are two types of misrepresentation in contract law, fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party in question knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.
According to Gordon v. Selico[۵۲] it is possible to make a misrepresentation either by words or by conduct, although not everything said or done is capable of constituting a misrepresentation. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[۵۳] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[۵۴]
Mistake
Main article: Mistake (contract law)
A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract and may be used as grounds to invalidate the agreement. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and common mistake.
• A common mistake is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts. This is demonstrated in the case of Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd.,[۵۵] which established that common mistake can only void a contract if the mistake of the subject-matter was sufficiently fundamental to render its identity different from what was contracted, making the performance of the contract impossible.
• A mutual mistake is when both parties of a contract are mistaken as to the terms. Each believes they are contracting to something different. The court usually tries to uphold such a mistake if a reasonable interpretation of the terms can be found. However, a contract based on a mutual mistake in judgement does not cause the contract to be voidable by the party that is adversely affected. See Raffles v. Wichelhaus.[۵۶]
• A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake.[۵۷] It is also possible for a contract to be void if there was a mistake in the identity of the contracting party. An example is in Lewis v. Avery[۵۸] where Lord Denning MR held that the contract can only be avoided if the plaintiff can show that, at the time of agreement, the plaintiff believed the other party&#۰۳۹;s identity was of vital importance. A mere mistaken belief as to the credibility of the other party is not sufficient.
Duress and undue influence
Main articles: Duress (contract law) and Undue influence
Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition."[۵۹] An example is in Barton v. Armstrong,[۶۰] a decision of the Privy Council. Armstrong threatened to kill Barton if he did not sign a contract, so the court set the contract aside. An innocent party wishing to set aside a contract for duress to the person need only to prove that the threat was made and that it was a reason for entry into the contract; the burden of proof then shifts to the other party to prove that the threat had no effect in causing the party to enter into the contract. There can also be duress to goods and sometimes, the concept of &#۰۳۹;economic duress&#۰۳۹; is used to vitiate contracts.
Undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. The law presumes that in certain classes of special relationship, such as between parent and child, or solicitor and client, there will be a special risk of one party unduly influencing their conduct and motives for contracting. As an equitable doctrine, the court has the discretion to vitiate such a contract. When no special relationship exists, the general rule is whether there was a relationship of such trust and confidence that it should give rise to such a presumption.[۶۱] See Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District.
Incapacity
Main article: Capacity (law)
Sometimes the capacity of either natural or artificial persons to either enforce contracts, or have contracts enforced against them is restricted. For instance, very small children may not be held to bargains they have made, on the assumption that they lack the maturity to understand what they are doing; errant employees or directors may be prevented from contracting for their company, because they have acted ultra vires (beyond their power). Another example might be people who are mentally incapacitated, either by disability or drunkenness.[۶۲] When the law limits or bars a person from engaging in specified activities, any agreements or contracts to do so are either voidable or void for incapacity. The law on capacity can serve either a protective function or can be a way of restraining people who act as agents for others.
Illegal contracts
Main article: Illegal agreement
A contract is void if it is based on an illegal purpose or contrary to public policy. One example, from Canada, is Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell.[۶۳] A woman forged her husband&#۰۳۹;s signature on ۴۰ checks, totaling over $۵۸,۰۰۰. To protect her from prosecution, her husband signed a letter of intent prepared by the bank in which he agreed to assume "all liability and responsibility" for the forged checks. However, the agreement was unenforceable, and struck down by the courts because of its essential goal, which was to "stifle a criminal prosecution." Because of the contract&#۰۳۹;s illegality, and as a result voided status, the bank was forced to return the payments made by the husband.
In the U.S., one unusual type of unenforceable contract is a personal employment contract to work as a spy or secret agent. This is because the very secrecy of the contract is a condition of the contract (in order to maintain plausible deniability). If the spy subsequently sues the government on the contract over issues like salary or benefits, then the spy has breached the contract by revealing its existence. It is thus unenforceable on that ground, as well as the public policy of maintaining national security (since a disgruntled agent might try to reveal all the government&#۰۳۹;s secrets during his/her lawsuit).[۶۴] Other types of unenforceable employment contracts include contracts agreeing to work for less than minimum wage and forfeiting the right to workman&#۰۳۹;s compensation in cases where workman&#۰۳۹;s compensation is due.
Remedies for breach of contract
Main article: Breach of contract
A breach of contract is failure to perform as stated in the contract. There are many ways to remedy a breached contract assuming it has not been waived. Typically, the remedy for breach of contract is an award of money damages. When dealing with unique subject matter, specific performance may be ordered.
As for many governments, it was not possible to sue the Crown in the UK for breach of contract before ۱۹۴۸. However, it was appreciated that contractors might be reluctant to deal on such a basis and claims were entertained under a petition of right that needed to be endorsed by the Home Secretary and Attorney-General. S.۱ Crown Proceedings Act ۱۹۴۷ opened the Crown to ordinary contractual claims through the courts as for any other person.
Damages
Main article: Damages
There are five different types of damages.
• Compensatory damages, which are given to the party which was detrimented by the breach of contract. With compensatory damages, there are two heads of loss, consequential damage and direct damage.
• Exemplary damages, which are used to make an example of the party at fault to discourage similar crimes. Fines can be multiplied by factors of up to ۵۰ for such damages. Some jurisdictions do not allow exemplary damages for breach of contract, eg, England & Wales.
• Liquidated damages are really a pre-estimate of loss agreed upon in the contract, so that the court is saved the process of calculating compensatory damages and the parties have greater certainty. Liquidated damages clauses are often called "penalty clauses" in ordinary language, but the law distinguishes between liquidated damages (legitimate) and penalties (invalid). A penalty clause is one which is intended to operate "in terrorem" to deter breach and are typically excessive in amount compared with the greatest loss which the parties could have anticipated as resulting from breach at the time the contract was made (though it will still be an invalid penalty if circumstances change and the sum is reasonable by the time of the actual breach). The parties&#۰۳۹; terminology is not determinative and the court will decide whether the clause is a penalty or one for liquidated damages. A test for determining which category a clause falls into was established by the English House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd[۶۵]
• Nominal damages, which consist of a small cash amount where the court concludes that the defendant is in breach but the plaintiff has suffered no quantifiable pecuniary loss (often sought to obtain a legal record of who was at fault).
• Punitive damages, which are used to punish the party at fault. These are not usually given regarding contracts but possible in a fraudulent situation. Again, these are not permitted in all jurisdictions, with England & Wales, for instance, prohibiting them.
Compensatory damages aim at compensating the plaintiff for actual losses suffered as accurately as possible. They may be "expectation damages", "reliance damages" or "restitutionary damages". Expectation damages are awarded to put the party in as good of a position as the party would have been in had the contract been performed as promised. The court assesses what the likely benefit to the plaintiff of the proper performance of the contract would have been, on a balance of probabilities. Reliance damages are usually awarded where no reasonably reliable estimate of expectation loss can be arrived at, or at the option of the plaintiff (the plaint will include a claim by the plaintiff for damages, so the plaintiff sets the agenda to an extent). Reliance losses cover expense suffered in reliance on the promise made by the defendant which the defendant has breached, rather than lost profits. Examples where reliance damages have been awarded because profits are too speculative include the Australian case of McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission[۶۶] which concerned a contract for the rights to salvage a ship which was not in fact there. It was not possible to evaluate with any reliability the profits that might have been made, given the risks and uncertainties of the venture, but the plaintiff&#۰۳۹;s expenditure in conducting a fruitless search for the vessel could be awarded. In Anglia Television Ltd v. Reed[۶۷] the English Court of Appeal went so far as to award the plaintiff expenditure incurred before the contract was executed, in preparation for performance of the contract, when a contract was subsequently executed and then breached by the defendant. Furthermore, once a breach has occurred, the non-breaching party is said to have a duty to mitigate damages. Damages are not recoverable for harm that the plaintiff should have foreseen and could have avoided by reasonable effort without undue risk, expense, or humiliation. The UCC states, "Consequential damages... include any loss... which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise." UCC ۲-۷۱۵. In English law the chief authority on mitigation is British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. v. Underground Electric Railway Co. of London[۱۹۱۲] AC ۶۷۳, see especially ۶۸۹ per Lord Haldane.</ref> but Professor Michael Furmston having stated that the rule is that a plaintiff will not recover damages for loss that would not have occurred had he taken reasonable steps to mitigate loss,[۶۸] has warned that "it is wrong to express this rule by stating that the plaintiff is under a duty to mitigate his loss",[۶۹] citing Sotiros Shipping Inc v. Sameiet, The Solholt.[۷۰]
Hadley v. Baxendale establishes general and consequential damages. General damages are those damages which naturally flow from a breach of contract. Consequential damages are those damages which, although not naturally flowing from a breach, are naturally supposed by both parties at the time of contract formation. An example would be when someone rents a car to get to a business meeting, but when that person arrives to pick up the car, it is not there. General damages would be the cost of renting a different car. Consequential damages would be the lost business if that person was unable to get to the meeting, if both parties knew the reason the party was renting the car. However, there is still a duty to cover; the fact that the car was not there does not give the party a right to not attempt to rent another car.
Whenever you have a contract that requires completing something, and a person informs you before they begin your project that it will not be completed, this is referred to as anticipatory breach. When it is neither possible nor desirable to award damages measured in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position that he or she had occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure"), or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched ("restitution").

سعید صالح احمدی