Free Advice to the Parties of Legal Proceedings between Henry and Wade Essay Sample
In relation to the case, there was a bilateral contract between Mr. Henry and Mr. Wade. The contract was formed because there was an agreement concerning the former securing a loan from the latter, which was legally enforceable (Galaty et al., 1999 p. 179). The contract was bilateral because the two parties had duties to fulfill as well as considerations to make. This is as illustrated in the Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v. The Commonwealth(1954) 92 CLR 424. Hence, if anything that amounted to a breach of contract occurred like it happened here, a legal enforcement is bound to follow. Mr. Wade made an offer to Mr. Henry of financing his developments with a loan which was subject to an interest. Wade accepted this offer to get a loan subject to the interest as agreed thus forming a contract. However, Wade should have informed Henry the reasons that could result into fluctuation of the interest but this was not the case. This is because the interest went up following the depreciation of the Australian dollar.
Instead, Mr. Wade assured Mr. Henry that there was no risk involved and further assured him that he did not require any insurance cover and could save on that cost for other expenses. Having the knowledge that Mr. Henry had sought help from Mr. Wade, means that he had no information concerning how to finance his investment. This implied that Mr. Wade was liable to tell his client all the benefits and demerits of borrowing a loan from overseas. Obviously, Kerry referred Mr. Henry to Mr. Wade because she knew that he was knowledgeable in the area. Thus Mr. Henry has all the right to take action against Mr. Wade. On the other hand, Mr. Wade should be ready to face the consequences of his actions although he has the right to also defend himself.
In regard to the problem, Mr. Henry can sue Mr. Wade in a court of law for damages resulting from the increased rate of interest which he was not aware of when drafting the contract. The parties should be aware that a valid offer amounts to a legal issue which the court can determine using the Objective test, which is Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597. Another important aspect that is presented by the case is that the party’s real motive is not important as emphasized by the court but as how the involved parties would view the circumstance. The process that Mr. Henry should undertake involves a legal process because the contract was legally binding. Mr. Henry can succeed in getting damages for the loss he incurred due to contracting with the bank. This is because Mr. Henry acted on the information he was given by Mr. Wade and that’s why he agreed to have a contract with the bank. It was a mistake in the first place and this is one of the affirmative defenses of a contract. Mr. Wade knew perfectly well situation like these may occur and he did not inform Mr. Henry in advance. Mr. Henry just acted on his information for he had little knowledge about factors which may affect the interest rates.
In failing to advise Mr. Henry, Mr. Wade risked to breach the contract which in fact was the case since the interest rates went up than they had agreed when drafting the initial contract. The remedy in breach of contract is often damages or compensation in terms of money. The kind of damages Mr. Henry could get from Mr. Wade would be decided by the court according the weight of the matter and as per the legal rules. The components of a contract in this regard include mutual assent as well as consideration. Assent in this case is achieved through offer and acceptance. One party makes an offer of an arrangement that another accepts and this can be termed as meeting of minds of more than two parties like in the case between Henry and Wade. This means that the acceptance was communicated as illustrated in the Entores v Miles Far East Corporation  2 QB 327 case. Since the court is not in a position to read the minds and existence of the agreement, Wade and Henry should appear for subjective questioning of their motives(Mark, 2008).
Mr. Henry should note that the contract was oral and implied since the offer and acceptance was not in written form although this does under weigh the consequences of the breach (Deborah, 2008). Implied contract in law are called quasi contract meaning the courts will remedy a situation in which one party will unjustly enrich with the other party where he or she is not required to compensate the other (Galaty et al., 1999 p. 179). Since the court can prove that Mr. Henry deserves the remedy, then the claim does not amount to “quantum meruit” (Wells, 2003 p. 78). Since the contract was breached by the offerer, the court will definitely rule in favor of Mr. Henry
In the case presented here, the consideration on Mr. Henry side was to pay the interest as agreed and he actually paid it although he paid more interest than the agreement stipulated. Mr. Wade’s consideration on the other hand was to offer the loan, which he honoured. Consideration sees to it that bargain is present and there is reciprocal inducement of the promises made to the parties. Consideration must be adequate although the courts will not weigh the adequacy of consideration(Deborah, 2008). Since the consideration which is a legal detriment as well as a bargain was present, the contract was thus legally binding. This means that Mr. Henry deserved damages for the breach of contract. This is as in the Glassbrooke v. Gcc (1925) AC 270 in which case the police ought to safeguard a coal mine and selected mobile units during a strike. The owners promised to pay the police for providing that protection. The police kept their promise but the owner did not pay them after claiming their money with the claim that the police were fulfilling their public duties. It was held that the police had discretion as to the form their duty should take despite that they ought to offer protection. The extra protection offered by the police was a proper consideration for the owner’s promise to pay and thus, the police were entitled to the pay.
What had transpired in the case is that Mr. Henry had shown the willingness to secure a loan for his investments whereas Mr. Wade had also shown the willingness to help him acquire it from the overseas. This was an expression of an invitation to treat since they were both willing to negotiate a contract of which they agreed regarding the terms of paying the interest. The Harvey v. Facey  UKPC 1,  AC 552 case is an example of an invitation to treat since it clearly shows that the property owner was willing to sell at a particular price. The fact the invitation was not revoked by any of the parties’ means that they were all bound by the legal contract. Hence, the breach resulting from Mr. Wade failure to communicate about the risks involved amounted to him being liable to pay Mr. Henry for damages.
In Storer v. Manchester City Council  UKHL 6, it was held that an agreement became complete upon the tenant signing as well as taking back the agreement to buy. This means that a contract was created between Mr. Wade and Mr. Henry and thus any breach amounted to a legal proceeding just like as stipulated by the principles of business law.
The parties to this contract should understand that transfer of money can be considered as an example of sufficient consideration although in some case it may not suffice for example if one party accepts to make partial payment of a debt in exchange for being released from the full amount cannot be considered as sufficient consideration (Galaty et al., 1999 p. 181). However in the case in question, the consideration was sufficient enough and thus reinforcing the claim that their contract was legally binding (Minor, 1901 p. 460).
The parties should also be aware that they formed the concept of estoppels which is employed to form obligations during negotiations. The concept provided the formation of legal obligations because Mr. Wade had offered Mr. Henry the assurance of paying the interest as stated in the agreement and Mr. Henry had depended on the pledge to his distress (Deborah, 2008). Mr. Henry should thus be confident while claiming the damages because the truth of what had transpired would surface and the court could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he deserves it.
The parties also must have the capacity to contract thus if either of them is a minor cannot be liable to contract. Although not told the ages of the parties in question, the purpose of their contract was lawful and thus Mr. Henry deserves to get the damages. Further, the parties involvement intended to create a legal relationship and thus a breach of anything legal constitutes a legal proceeding. The parties had consent prior to the contract and since it was not under any duress, it constituted legal intervention since there was a breach.
On the other hand, Mr. Wade can plead innocent when taken to a court of law by the offered through affirmative defenses. Mr. Wade in his affirmative defenses in the bid to prove his innocence could assert to avoid his obligation through claiming that he entered into the contract by mistake, when incapacitated or he was under duress or through undue influence, fraud or frustration of the purpose. For instance the Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 324 case. Such defenses may cause the contract between Wade and Henry to become void or voidable. Void contacts can be ratified by either party but voidable contacts cannot be ratified. Parties are allowed to choose whether or not they will contract (Mark, 2007). However, Mr. Wade should know that the court will be in a position to prove beyond doubt if he ought to pay Mr. Henry for damages. As such, Mr. Wade should have enough evidence to prove his innocence in the matter.
Further, Mr. Henry has suffered actual loss and thus will be in a position to recover substantial damages. Since the breach was fundamental, Mr. Henry could consider the contract as discharged and sue for damages immediately just like in Hochster v. DeLa Tour (1853) 2 E&B 678. The other option he has is to continue with the contract until he complete paying for the loan and then sue Mr. Wade to pay for damages. An illustration of this is White and Carter Ltd v. McGregor (1962) 2 AC 413. Mr. Henry should be aware that the court will establish the remoteness of the matter. This is in the bid to establish the amount of breach that Mr. Wade is legally responsible. Hence, Mr. Henry will get damages equivalent to the loss.
Kerry although mentioned in the case has no legal obligations pertaining to the case since she was not a party to the contract. This is because she just arranged Mr. Henry to meet with Wade in order to agree on the terms of the finance he required. Kerry was not in any way involved with the decision of Mr. Henry to accept the offer, hence she has no legal responsibility to what transpired.