“Contract”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

A contract is a legally-binding agreement which recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement.^[1] A contract is legally enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of the law. An agreement typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or promises of any of those. In the event of breach of contract, the law awards the injured party access to legal remedies such as damages and cancellation.^[2]

In the Anglo-American common law, formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party must have capacity to enter the contract.^[3] Although most oral contracts are binding, some types of contracts may require formalities such as being in writing or by deed.^[4]

In the civil law tradition, contract law is a branch of the law of obligations.^[5]

Formation

At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, and legality of both form and content.

Not all agreements are necessarily contractual, as the parties generally must be deemed to have an intention to be legally bound. A so-called gentlemen's agreement is one which is not intended to be legally enforceable, and "binding in honour only".^[6]^[7]^[8]

Offer and acceptance

In order for a contract to be formed, the parties must reach mutual assent (also called a meeting of the minds). This is typically reached through offer and an acceptance which does not vary the offer's terms, which is known as the "mirror image rule". An offer is a definite statement of the offeror's willingness to be bound should certain conditions be met.^[9] If a purported acceptance does vary the terms of an offer, it is not an acceptance but a counteroffer and, therefore, simultaneously a rejection of the original offer. The Uniform Commercial Code disposes of the mirror image rule in §2-207, although the UCC only governs transactions in goods in the USA. As a court cannot read minds, the intent of the parties is interpreted objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person,^[10] as determined in the early English case of Smith v Hughes [1871]. It is important to note that where an offer specifies a particular mode of acceptance, only an acceptance communicated via that method will be valid.^[11]

Contracts may be bilateral or unilateral. A bilateral contract is an agreement in which each of the parties to the contract makes a promise^[12] or set of promises to each other. For example, in a contract for the sale of a home, the buyer promises to pay the seller $200,000 in exchange for the seller's promise to deliver title to the property. These common contracts take place in the daily flow of commerce transactions, and in cases with sophisticated or expensive precedent requirements, which are requirements that must be met for the contract to be fulfilled.

Less common are unilateral contracts in which one party makes a promise, but the other side does not promise anything. In these cases, those accepting the offer are not required to communicate their acceptance to the offeror. In a reward contract, for example, a person who has lost a dog could promise a reward if the dog is found, through publication or orally. The payment could be additionally conditioned on the dog being returned alive. Those who learn of the reward are not required to search for the dog, but if someone finds the dog and delivers it, the promisor is required to pay. In the similar case of advertisements of deals or bargains, a general rule is that these are not contractual offers but merely an "invitation to treat" (or bargain), but the applicability of this rule is disputed and contains various exceptions.^[13] The High Court of Australia stated that the term unilateral contract is "unscientific and misleading".^[14]

In certain circumstances, an implied contract may be created. A contract is implied in fact if the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, John Smith, a former lawyer may implicitly enter a contract by visiting a doctor and being examined; if the patient refuses to pay after being examined, the patient has breached a contract implied in fact. A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. Quantum meruit claims are an example.

Invitation to treat

Where something is advertised in a newspaper or on a poster, the advertisement will not normally constitute an offer but will instead be an invitation to treat, an indication that one or both parties are prepared to negotiate a deal.^[15]^[16]^[17]

An exception arises if the advertisement makes a unilateral promise, such as the offer of a reward, as in the famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,^[18] decided in nineteenth-century England. The company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, advertised a smoke ball that would, if sniffed "three times daily for two weeks", prevent users from catching the 'flu. If the smoke ball failed to prevent 'flu, the company promised that they would pay the user £100, adding that they had "deposited £1,000 in the Alliance Bank to show our sincerity in the matter". When Mrs Carlill sued for the money, the company argued the advert should not be taken as a serious, legally binding offer; instead it was a "mere puff"; but the Court of Appeal held that it would appear to a reasonable man that Carbolic had made a serious offer, and determined that the reward was a contractual promise.

Although an invitation to treat cannot be accepted, it should not be ignored, for it may nevertheless affect the offer. For instance, where an offer is made in response to an invitation to treat, the offer may incorporate the terms of the invitation to treat (unless the offer expressly incorporates different terms). If, as in the Boots case,^[19] the offer is made by an action without any negotiations (such as presenting goods to a cashier), the offer will be presumed to be on the terms of the invitation to treat.

Auctions are governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), where section 57(2) provides: “A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner. Until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid”.

Electronic contracts

Entry into contracts online has become common. Many jurisdictions have passed e-signature laws that have made the electronic contract and signature as legally valid as a paper contract.

In India, E-contracts are governed by the Indian Contract Act (1872), according to which certain conditions need to be fulfilled while formulating a valid contact. Certain sections in information Technology Act (2000) also provide for validity of online contract.^[20]

In some U.S. states, email exchanges have become binding contracts. New York courts in 2016 held that the principles of real estate contracts to apply equally to electronic communications and electronic signatures, so long as “its contents and subscription meet all requirements of the governing statute” and pursuant to the Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA).^[21]

Intention to be legally bound

In commercial agreements it is presumed that parties intend to be legally bound unless the parties expressly state the opposite as in a heads of agreement document. For example, in Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd an agreement between two business parties was not enforced because an 'honour clause' in the document stated "this is not a commercial or legal agreement, but is only a statement of the intention of the parties".

In contrast, domestic and social agreements such as those between children and parents are typically unenforceable on the basis of public policy. For example, in the English case Balfour v. Balfour a husband agreed to give his wife £30 a month while he was away from home, but the court refused to enforce the agreement when the husband stopped paying. In contrast, in Merritt v Merritt the court enforced an agreement between an estranged couple because the circumstances suggested their agreement was intended to have legal consequences.

Consideration

A concept of English common law, consideration is required for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The court in Currie v Misa ^[22] declared consideration to be a “Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit, or Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, Responsibility”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee; and typically the thing of value is goods, money, or an act. Forbearance to act, such as an adult promising to refrain from smoking, is enforceable only if one is thereby surrendering a legal right.^[23]^[24]^[25]

In Dunlop v. Selfridge Lord Dunedin adopted Pollack's metaphor of purchase and sale{{clarify|date=April 2018}} to explain consideration. He called consideration 'the price for which the promise of the other is bought'.^[26]

In colonial times, the concept of consideration was exported to many common law countries,{{which|date=April 2018}} but it is unknown in Scotland and in civil law jurisdictions.^[27] Roman law-based systems^[28] neither require nor recognise consideration, and some commentators have suggested that consideration be abandoned, and estoppel be used to replace it as a basis for contracts.^[29] 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."^[30] In the United States, the emphasis has shifted to the process of bargaining as exemplified by Hamer v. Sidway (1891).

Courts will typically not weigh the "adequacy" of consideration provided the consideration is determined to be "sufficient", with sufficiency defined as meeting the test of law, whereas "adequacy" is the subjective fairness or equivalence. For instance, agreeing to sell a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract^[31] (although if the transaction is an attempt to avoid tax, it will be treated by the tax authority as though a market price had been paid).^[32] Parties may do this for tax purposes, attempting to disguise gift transactions as contracts. This is known as the peppercorn rule, but in some jurisdictions, the penny may constitute legally insufficient nominal consideration. An exception to the rule of adequacy is money, whereby a debt must always be paid in full for "accord and satisfaction".^[33]^[34]{{refn|{{cite BAILII|litigants=Foakes v Beer |court=UKHL |year=1884 |num=1 |parallelcite=(1884) AC 605 |courtname=auto}}. (per incuriam?^[30])}}^[35]

However, consideration must be given as part of entering the contract, not prior as in past consideration. For example, in the early English case of Eastwood v. Kenyon [1840], the guardian of a young girl took out a loan to educate her. After she was married, her husband promised to pay the debt but the loan was determined to be past consideration. The insufficiency of past consideration is related to the preexisting duty rule. In the early English case of Stilk v. Myrick [1809], a captain promised to divide the wages of two deserters among the remaining crew if they agreed to sail home short-handed; however, this promise was found unenforceable as the crew were already contracted to sail the ship. The preexisting duty rule also extends to general legal duties; for example, a promise to refrain from committing a tort or crime is not sufficient.^[36]

Capacity

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.^[37]

Each contractual party must be a "competent person" having legal capacity. The parties may be natural persons ("individuals") or juristic persons ("corporations"). An agreement is formed when an "offer" is accepted. The parties must have an intention to be legally bound; and to be valid, the agreement must have both proper "form" and a lawful object. In England (and in jurisdictions using English contract principles), the parties must also exchange "consideration" to create a "mutuality of obligation," as in Simpkins v Pays.^[38]

In the United States, persons under 18 are typically minor and their contracts are considered voidable; however, if the minor voids the contract, benefits received by the minor must be returned. The minor can enforce breaches of contract by an adult while the adult's enforcement may be more limited under the bargain principle.{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} Promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment may be available, but generally are not.

Formalities and writing requirements for some contracts

A contract is often evidenced in writing or by deed, the general rule is that a person who signs a contractual document will be bound by the terms in that document, this rule is referred to as the rule in L'Estrange v Graucob.^[39] This rule is approved by the High Court of Australia in Toll(FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd.^[40] But a valid contract may (with some exceptions) be made orally or even by conduct.^[41] Remedies for breach of contract include damages (monetary compensation for loss)^[42] and, for serious breaches only, repudiation (i.e. cancellation).^[43] The equitable remedy of specific performance, enforceable through an injunction, may be available if damages are insufficient.

Typically, contracts are oral or written, but written contracts have typically been preferred in common law legal systems;^[44] in 1677 England passed the Statute of Frauds which influenced similar statute of frauds laws^[45] in the United States and other countries such as Australia.^[46] In general, the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in the United States requires a written contract for tangible product sales in excess of $500, and real estate contracts are required to be written. If the contract is not required by law to be written, an oral contract is valid and therefore legally binding.^[47] The United Kingdom has since replaced the original Statute of Frauds, but written contracts are still required for various circumstances such as land (through the Law of Property Act 1925).

An oral contract may also be called a parol contract or a verbal contract, with "verbal" meaning "spoken" rather than "in words", an established usage in British English with regards to contracts and agreements,^[48] and common although somewhat deprecated as "loose" in American English.^[49]

If a contract is in a written form, and somebody signs it, then the signer is typically bound by its terms regardless of whether they have actually read it ^[39]^[40] provided the document is contractual in nature.^[50] However, affirmative defenses such as duress or unconscionability may enable the signer to avoid the obligation. Further, reasonable notice of a contract's terms must be given to the other party prior to their entry into the contract.^[51]^[52]

An unwritten, unspoken contract, also known as "a contract implied by the acts of the parties", which can be either an implied-in-fact contract or implied-in-law contract, may also be legally binding. Implied-in-fact contracts are real contracts under which the parties receive the "benefit of the bargain".^[53] However, contracts implied in law are also known as quasi-contracts, and the remedy is quantum meruit, the fair market value of goods or services rendered.

Contract terms: construction and interpretation

A contractual term is "an[y] provision forming part of a contract".^[54] 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.

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.^[55] 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.^[56] In New South Wales, even if there is uncertainty or incompleteness in a contract, the contract may still be binding on the parties if there is a sufficiently certain and complete clause requiring the parties to undergo arbitration, negotiation or mediation.^[57]

Courts may also look to external standards, which are either mentioned explicitly in the contract^[58] or implied by common practice in a certain field.^[59] 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. Typically, non-severable contracts only require the substantial performance of a promise rather than the whole or complete performance of a promise to warrant payment. However, express clauses may be included in a non-severable contract to explicitly require the full performance of an obligation.^[60]

Classification of terms

Contractual terms^[61] are classified differently depending upon the context or jurisdiction. Terms establish conditions precedent. English (but not necessarily non-English) common law distinguishes between important conditions and warranties, with a breach of a condition by one party allowing the other to repudiate and be discharged while a warranty allows for remedies and damages but not complete discharge.^[62]^[63] Whether or not a term is a condition is determined in part by the parties' intent.^[63]^[64]

In a less technical sense, however, a condition is a generic term and a warranty is a promise.^[62] Not all language in the contract is determined to be a contractual term. Representations, which are often precontractual, are typically less strictly enforced than terms, and material misrepresentations historically was a cause of action for the tort of deceit. Warranties were enforced regardless of materiality; in modern United States law the distinction is less clear but warranties may be enforced more strictly.^[70] Statements of opinion may be viewed as "mere puff".

In specific circumstances these terms are used differently. For example, in English insurance law, violation of a "condition precedent" by an insured is a complete defense against the payment of claims.^[71]{{rp|160}} In general insurance law, a warranty is a promise that must be complied with.^[65] In product transactions, warranties promise that the product will continue to function for a certain period of time.

In the United Kingdom the courts determine whether a term is a condition or warranty; for example, an actress' obligation to perform the opening night of a theatrical production is a condition,^[66] but a singer's obligation to rehearse may be a warranty.^[67] Statute may also declare a term or nature of term to be a condition or warranty; for example the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s15A^[68] provides that terms as to title, description, quality and sample are generally conditions. The United Kingdom has also contrived the concept of an "intermediate term" (also called innominate), first established in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962].

Representations versus warranties

Statements of fact in a contract or in obtaining the contract are considered to be either warranties or representations. Traditionally, warranties are factual promises which are enforced through a contract legal action, regardless of materiality, intent, or reliance.^[70] Representations are traditionally precontractual statements which allow for a tort-based action (such as the tort of deceit) if the misrepresentation is negligent or fraudulent;^[69] historically a tort was the only action available, but by 1778, breach of warranty became a separate legal contractual action.^[70] In U.S. law, the distinction between the two is somewhat unclear;^[70] warranties are viewed as primarily contract-based legal action while negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations are tort-based, but there is a confusing mix of case law in the United States.^[70] In modern English law, sellers often avoid using the term 'represents' in order to avoid claims under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, while in America 'warrants and represents' is relatively common.^[71] Some modern commentators suggest avoiding the words and substituting 'state' or 'agree', and some model forms do not use the words;^[69] however, others disagree.^[72]

Statements in a contract may not be upheld if the court finds that the statements are subjective or promotional puffery. English courts may weigh the emphasis or relative knowledge in determining whether a statement is enforceable as part of the contract. In the English case of Bannerman v White^[73] the court upheld a rejection by a buyer of hops which had been treated with sulphur since the buyer explicitly expressed the importance of this requirement. The relative knowledge of the parties may also be a factor, as in English case of Bissett v Wilkinson^[74] where the court did not find misrepresentation when a seller said that farmland being sold would carry 2000 sheep if worked by one team; the buyer was considered sufficiently knowledgeable to accept or reject the seller's opinion.

Standard terms and contracts of adhesion

Standard form contracts contain "boilerplate", which is a set of "one size fits all" contract provisions. However, the term may also narrowly refer to conditions at the end of the contract which specify the governing law provision, venue, assignment and delegation, waiver of jury trial, notice, and force majeure. Restrictive provisions in contracts where the consumer has little negotiating power ("contracts of adhesion") attract consumer protection scrutiny.

Implied terms

A term may either be express or implied^[75]. 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 factual circumstances or conduct of the parties. In the case of BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings,^[53] the UK Privy Council, on appeal from Australia, proposed a five-stage test to determine situations where the facts of a case may imply terms. The classic tests have been the "business efficacy test" and the "officious bystander test". Under the "business efficacy test" first proposed in The Moorcock [1889], the minimum terms necessary to give business efficacy to the contract will be implied. Under the officious bystander test (named in Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] but actually originating in Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd [1918]), a term can only be implied in fact if an "officious bystander" listening to the contract negotiations suggested that the term be included the parties would promptly agree. The difference between these tests is questionable.

Terms implied in law

Statutes or judicial rulings may create implied contractual terms, particularly in standardized relationships such as employment or shipping contracts. The Uniform Commercial Code of the United States also imposes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in performance and enforcement of contracts covered by the Code. In addition, Australia, Israel and India imply a similar good faith term through laws.

In England, some contracts (insurance and partnerships) require utmost good faith, while others may require good faith (employment contracts and agency). Most English contracts do not need any good faith, provided that the law is met. There is, however, an overarching concept of "legitimate expectation".

Most countries have statutes which deal directly with sale of goods, lease transactions, and trade practices. In the United States, prominent examples include, in the case of products, an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and in the case of homes an implied warranty of habitability.

Terms implied by custom

A term may be implied on the basis of custom or usage in a particular market or context. In the Australian case of Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur (Aust) Limited,^[79] the requirements for a term to be implied by custom were set out. For a term to be implied by custom it needs to be "so well known and acquiesced in that everyone making a contract in that situation can reasonably be presumed to have imported that term into the contract".^[79]{{rp|paras 8–9}}

Third parties

The common law doctrine of privity of contract provides that only those who are party to a contract may sue or be sued on it.^[80]^[81] The leading case of Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] ^[82] immediately showed that the doctrine had the effect of defying the intent of the parties. In maritime law, the cases of Scruttons v Midland Silicones [1962] ^[83] and N.Z. Shipping v Satterthwaite [1975],^[84] established how third parties could gain the protection of limitation clauses within a bill of lading.

Some common law exceptions such as agency, assignment and negligence allowed some circumvention of privity rules,^[85] but the unpopular^[86] doctrine remained intact until it was amended by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which provides:^[87]

Performance

Performance varies according to the particular circumstances. While a contract is being performed, it is called an executory contract, and when it is completed it is an executed contract. In some cases there may be substantial performance but not complete performance, which allows the performing party to be partially compensated.

Defenses

Vitiating factors constituting defences to purported contract formation include:

Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.

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: fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party alleging misrepresentation 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 [1986] it is possible to misrepresent either by words or conduct. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.^[74] 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.^[89]

It is a fallacy that an opinion cannot be a statement of fact. If a statement is the honest expression of an opinion honestly entertained, it cannot be said that it involves any fraudulent misrepresentations of fact.^[90]

Remedies for misrepresentation. Rescission is the principal remedy and damages are also available if a tort is established. In order to obtain relief, there must be a positive misrepresentation of law and also, the representee must have been misled by and relied on this misrepresentation:Public Trustee v Taylor.^[91]

Mistake

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 types of mistake in contract: common mistake, mutual mistake, and unilateral mistake.

Duress 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."^[100] An example is in Barton v Armstrong [1976] in a person was threatened with death if they did not sign the contract. 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, 'economic duress'.

Undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person through a special relationship such as between parent and child or solicitor and client. As an equitable doctrine, the court has discretion. When no special relationship exists, the question is whether there was a relationship of such trust and confidence that it should give rise to such a presumption.^[101]^[102]^[103]

Unconscionable dealing

In Australian law, a contract can be set aside due to unconscionable dealing.^[104]^[105] Firstly, the claimant must show that they were under a special disability, the test for this being that they were unable to act in their best interest. Secondly, the claimant must show that the defendant took advantage of this special disability^[106].^[104]

Illegal contracts

If based on an illegal purpose or contrary to public policy, a contract is void. In the 1996 Canadian case of Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell^[107] a woman forged her husband's signature, and her husband signed agreed to assume "all liability and responsibility" for the forged checks. However, the agreement was unenforceable as it was intended to "stifle a criminal prosecution", and 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's secrets during his/her lawsuit).^[108] Other types of unenforceable employment contracts include contracts agreeing to work for less than minimum wage and forfeiting the right to workman's compensation in cases where workman's compensation is due.

Remedies for defendant on defenses

Setting aside the contract

There can be four different ways in which contracts can be set aside. A contract may be deemed 'void', 'voidable', 'unenforceable' or 'ineffective'. Voidness implies that a contract never came into existence. Voidability implies that one or both parties may declare a contract ineffective at their wish. Kill fees are paid by magazine publishers to authors when their articles are submitted on time but are subsequently not used for publication. When this occurs, the magazine cannot claim copyright for the "killed" assignment. Unenforceability implies that neither party may have recourse to a court for a remedy. Ineffectiveness implies that the contract terminates by order of a court where a public body has failed to satisfy public procurement law. To rescind is to set aside or unmake a contract.

Disputes

Procedure

In many countries, in order to obtain damages for breach of contract or to obtain specific performance or other equitable relief, the aggrieved injured party may file a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit in court.^[109]

In England and Wales, a contract may be enforced by use of a claim, or in urgent cases by applying for an interim injunction to prevent a breach. Likewise, in the United States, an aggrieved party may apply for injunctive relief to prevent a threatened breach of contract, where such breach would result in irreparable harm that could not be adequately remedied by money damages.^[110]

Arbitration

If the contract contains a valid arbitration clause then, prior to filing a lawsuit, the aggrieved party must submit an arbitration claim in accordance with the procedures set forth in the clause. Many contracts provide that all disputes arising thereunder will be resolved by arbitration, rather than litigated in courts.

Arbitration judgments may generally be enforced in the same manner as ordinary court judgments, and are recognized and enforceable internationally under the New York Convention, which has 156 parties. However, in New York Convention states, arbitral decisions are generally immune unless there is a showing that the arbitrator's decision was irrational or tainted by fraud.^[111]

Some arbitration clauses are not enforceable, and in other cases arbitration may not be sufficient to resolve a legal dispute. For example, disputes regarding validity of registered IP rights may need to be resolved by a public body within the national registration system.^[112] For matters of significant public interest that go beyond the narrow interests of the parties to the agreement, such as claims that a party violated a contract by engaging in illegal anti-competitive conduct or committed civil rights violations, a court might find that the parties may litigate some or all of their claims even before completing a contractually agreed arbitration process.^[113]

United States

In the United States, thirty-five states (notably not including New York)^[114] and the District of Columbia have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act to facilitate the enforcement of arbitrated judgments.^[115]

Customer claims against securities brokers and dealers are almost always resolved pursuant to contractual arbitration clauses, because securities dealers are required under the terms of their membership in self-regulatory organizations such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly the NASD) or NYSE to arbitrate disputes with their customers. The firms then began including arbitration agreements in their customer agreements, requiring their customers to arbitrate disputes.^[116]^[117]

Choice of law

When a contract dispute arises between parties that are in different jurisdictions, law that is applicable to a contract is dependent on the conflict of laws analysis by the court where the breach of contract action is filed In the absence of a choice of law clause, the court will normally apply either the law of the forum or the law of the jurisdiction that has the strongest connection to the subject matter of the contract. A choice of law clause allows the parties to agree in advance that their contract will be interpreted under the laws of a specific jurisdiction.^[118]

Within the United States, choice of law clauses are generally enforceable, although exceptions based upon public policy may at times apply.^[119] Within the European Union, even when the parties have negotiated a choice of law clause, conflict of law issues may be governed by the Rome I Regulation.^[120]

Choice of forum

Many contracts contain a forum selection clause setting out where disputes in relation to the contract should be litigated. The clause may be general, requiring that any case arising from the contract be filed within a specific state or country, or it may require that a case be filed in a specific court. For example, a choice of forum clause may require that a case be filed in the U.S. State of California, or it may require more specifically that the case be filed in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

A choice of law or venue is not necessarily binding upon a court. Based upon an analysis of the laws, rules of procedure and public policy of the state and court in which the case was filed, a court that is identified by the clause may find that it should not exercise jurisdiction, or a court in a different jurisdiction or venue may find that the litigation may proceed despite the clause^[121]. As part of that analysis, a court may examine whether the clause conforms with the formal requirements of the jurisdiction in which the case was filed (in some jurisdictions a choice of forum or choice of venue clause only limits the parties if the word "exclusive" is explicitly included in the clause). Some jurisdictions will not accept an action that has no connection to the court that was chosen, and others will not enforce a choice of venue clause when they consider themselves to be a more convenient forum for the litigation.^[122]

Some contracts are governed by multilateral instruments that require a non-chosen courts to dismiss cases, and require the recognition of judgements made by courts having jurisdiction based on a choice of court clause. For example, the Brussels regime instruments (31 European states) and the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (European Union, Mexico, Montenegro, Singapore), as well as several instruments related to a specific area of law, may require courts to enforce and recognize choice of law clauses and foreign judgments.

Remedies

In the United Kingdom, breach of contract is defined in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as: [i] non-performance, [ ii] poor performance, [iii] part-performance, or [iv] performance which is substantially different from what was reasonably expected. Innocent parties may repudiate (cancel) the contract only for a major breach (breach of condition),^[123]^[124] but they may always recover compensatory damages, provided that the breach has caused foreseeable loss.

It was not possible to sue the Crown in the UK for breach of contract before 1948. 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.1 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary contractual claims through the courts as for any other person.

Damages

Compensatory damages compensate 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.^[126] Reliance damages are usually awarded where no reasonably reliable estimate of expectation loss can be arrived at or at the option of the plaintiff. Reliance losses cover expense suffered in reliance to the promise. Examples where reliance damages have been awarded because profits are too speculative include the Australian case of McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission^[95] which concerned a contract for the rights to salvage a ship. In Anglia Television Ltd v. Reed^[127] the English Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff expenditures incurred prior to the contract in preparation of performance.

After a breach has occurred, the innocent party has a duty to mitigate loss by taking any reasonable steps. Failure to mitigate means that damages may be reduced or even denied altogether.^[128] However, Professor Michael Furmston ^[129] has argued that "it is wrong to express (the mitigation) rule by stating that the plaintiff is under a duty to mitigate his loss",^[130] citing Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet, The Solholt.^[131] If a party provides notice that the contract will not be completed, an anticipatory breach occurs.

Damages may be general or consequential. 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 mitigate the losses. The fact that the car was not there does not give the party a right to not attempt to rent another car.

To recover damages, a claimant must show that the breach of contract caused foreseeable loss.^[42]^[132] Hadley v Baxendale established that the test of foreseeability is both objective or subjective. In other words, is it foreseeable to the objective bystander, or to the contracting parties, who may have special knowledge? On the facts of this case, where a miller lost production because a carrier delayed taking broken mill parts for repair, the court held that no damages were payable since the loss was foreseeable neither by the "reasonable man" nor by the carrier, both of whom would have expected the miller to have a spare part in store.

Specific performance

There may be circumstances in which it would be unjust to permit the defaulting party simply to buy out the injured party with damages. For example, where an art collector purchases a rare painting and the vendor refuses to deliver, the collector's damages would be equal to the sum paid.

The court may make an order of what is called "specific performance", requiring that the contract be performed. In some circumstances a court will order a party to perform his or her promise (an order of "specific performance") or issue an order, known as an "injunction", that a party refrain from doing something that would breach the contract. A specific performance is obtainable for the breach of a contract to sell land or real estate on such grounds that the property has a unique value. In the United States by way of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, specific performance in personal service contracts is only legal "as punishment for a crime whereof the criminal shall be dully convicted."^[133]

Both an order for specific performance and an injunction are discretionary remedies, originating for the most part in equity. Neither is available as of right and in most jurisdictions and most circumstances a court will not normally order specific performance. A contract for the sale of real property is a notable exception. In most jurisdictions, the sale of real property is enforceable by specific performance. Even in this case the defenses to an action in equity (such as laches, the bona fide purchaser rule, or unclean hands) may act as a bar to specific performance.

Related to orders for specific performance, an injunction may be requested when the contract prohibits a certain action. Action for injunction would prohibit the person from performing the act specified in the contract.

History

Whilst early rules of trade and barter have existed since ancient times, modern laws of contract in the West are traceable from the industrial revolution (1750 onwards), when increasing numbers worked in factories for a cash wage. In particular, the growing strength of the British economy and the adaptability and flexibility of the English common law led to a swift development of English^[134] contract law, while the more rigid civil law in Europe lagged behind.^[135] Colonies within the British empire (including the USA and the Dominions) would adopt the law of the mother country. Civil law countries (especially Germany) later developed their own brand of contract law. In the 20th century, the growth of export trade led to countries adopting international conventions, such as the Hague-Visby Rules and the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,^[136] to promote uniform regulations.

Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, ( "agreements must be kept").^[137] The common law of contract originated with the now-defuct writ of assumpsit, which was originally a tort action based on reliance.^[138] Contract law falls within the general law of obligations, along with tort, unjust enrichment, and restitution.^[139]

Jurisdictions vary in their principles of freedom of contract. In common law jurisdictions such as England and the United States, a high degree of freedom is the norm. For example, in American law, it was determined in the 1901 case of Hurley v. Eddingfield that a physician was permitted to deny treatment to a patient despite the lack of other available medical assistance and the patient's subsequent death.^[140] This is in contrast to the civil law, which typically applies certain overarching principles to disputes arising out of contract, as in the French Civil Code. Other legal systems such as Islamic law, socialist legal systems, and customary law have their own variations.

However, in both the European union and the United States, the need to prevent discrimination has eroded the full extent of freedom of contract. Legislation governing equality, equal pay, racial discrimination, disability discrimination and so on, has imposed limits of the full freedom of contract.^[158] For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricted private racial discrimination against African-Americans.^[141] In the early 20th century the United States underwent the "Lochner era", in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down economic regulations on the basis of freedom of contract and the Due Process Clause; these decisions were eventually overturned and the Supreme Court established a deference to legislative statutes and regulations which restrict freedom of contract.^[142] The U.S. Constitution contains a Contract Clause, but this has been interpreted as only restricting the retroactive impairment of contracts.^[142]

Commercial use

Contracts are widely used in commercial law, and form the legal foundation for transactions across the world. Common examples include contracts for the sale of services and goods (both wholesale and retail), construction contracts, contracts of carriage, software licenses, employment contracts, insurance policies, sale or lease of land, and various other uses.

Although the European Union is fundamentally an economic community with a range of trade rules, there is no overarching "EU Law of Contract". In 1993, Harvey McGregor, a British barrister and academic, produced a "Contract Code" under the auspices of the English and Scottish Law Commissions, which was a proposal to both unify and codify the contract laws of England and Scotland. This document was offered as a possible "Contract Code for Europe", but tensions between English and German jurists meant that this proposal has so far come to naught.^[143]

Contract theory

Contract theory is the body of legal theory that addresses normative and conceptual questions in contract law. One of the most important questions asked in contract theory is why contracts are enforced. One prominent answer to this question focuses on the economic benefits of enforcing bargains. Another approach, associated with Charles Fried, maintains that the purpose of contract law is to enforce promises. This theory is developed in Fried's book, Contract as Promise. Other approaches to contract theory are found in the writings of legal realists and critical legal studies theorists.

More generally, writers have propounded Marxist and feminist interpretations of contract. Attempts at overarching understandings of the purpose and nature of contract as a phenomenon have been made, notably relational contract theory originally developed by U.S. contracts scholars Ian Roderick Macneil and Stewart Macaulay, building at least in part on the contract theory work of U.S. scholar Lon L. Fuller, while U.S. scholars have been at the forefront of developing economic theories of contract focussing on questions of transaction cost and so-called 'efficient breach' theory.

Another dimension of the theoretical debate in contract is its place within, and relationship to a wider law of obligations. Obligations have traditionally been divided into contracts, which are voluntarily undertaken and owed to a specific person or persons, and obligations in tort which are based on the wrongful infliction of harm to certain protected interests, primarily imposed by the law, and typically owed to a wider class of persons.

Recently it has been accepted that there is a third category, restitutionary obligations, based on the unjust enrichment of the defendant at the plaintiff's expense. Contractual liability, reflecting the constitutive function of contract, is generally for failing to make things better (by not rendering the expected performance), liability in tort is generally for action (as opposed to omission) making things worse, and liability in restitution is for unjustly taking or retaining the benefit of the plaintiff's money or work.^[144]

The common law describes the circumstances under which the law will recognise the existence of rights, privilege or power arising out of a promise.

Gallery

By country

Notes

1. ^{{Cite book|title=Round Hall nutshells Contract Law|last=Ryan|first=Fergus|publisher=Thomson Round Hall|year=2006|isbn=9781858001715|location=|pages=1|quote=|via=}}
2. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/contract-law/|title=Case Note - Contract Law - Rule of Law Institute of Australia|date=2018-05-31|work=Rule of Law Institute of Australia|access-date=2018-09-14|language=en-US}}
3. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02.php|title=Contracts|website=www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2018-09-14}}
4. ^In England, contracts of employment must be in writing (Employment Rights Act 1996); and contracts for the sale of land, and most leases, must be completed by deed. (Law of Property Act 1925).
5. ^This category of "obligations" is essentially a fusion of contract and tort, and while cases such as Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd promoted this idea, it has fallen out of favour in English legal circles.
6. ^Rose & Frank Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 261, 273 (Bailhache J). [https://1-next-westlaw-com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/Document/I8F9851C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?listSource=Search&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavigation%2fi0ad70523000001563fb4c1cd717a2e1b%3fNav%3dINTERNATIONAL-CASES%26navQualifier%3dI1dec5f10a08911e28578f7ccc38dcbee%26fragmentIdentifier%3dI8F9851C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9%26startIndex%3d1%26contextData%3d%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3dSearchItem&list=ALL&rank=1&listPageSource=6749600d76b27e75b8079b4c5c920e54&originationContext=docHeader&contextData=(sc.Search)&transitionType=Document&needToInjectTerms=False&enableBestPortion=True#co_tempAnchor Westlaw].
7. ^ Appleson v Littlewoods 1939 & Jones v Vernons Pools 1938.
8. ^ Case summaries [https://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/contract-law-summarised-explanations-definitions-cases/]
9. ^{{Cite book|title=Principles of Irish Contract Law|last=Enright|first=Máiréad|publisher=Clarus Press|year=2007|isbn=|location=|pages=|quote=|via=}}
10. ^DiMatteo L. (1997). The Counterpoise of Contracts: The Reasonable Person Standard and the Subjectivity of Judgment. South Carolina Law Review.
11. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|10|1973|litigants=George Hudson Holdings Ltd v Rudder (1973) 128 CLR 387 |courtname=auto}}.
12. ^promise legal definition of promise. promise synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary
13. ^Feinman JM, Brill SR. (2006). Is an Advertisement an Offer? Why it is, and Why it Matters. Hastings Law Journal.
14. ^Wilmot et al, 2009, Contract Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 34
15. ^Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
16. ^Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR8QB 286
17. ^Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879
18. ^{{cite BAILII |litigants=Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co |parallelcite=[1893] 2 QB 256 |year=1892 |court=EWCA |division=Civ |num=1 |courtname=auto}}.
19. ^Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd, 1953, 1 Q.B. 401
20. ^{{cite web|last1=Linstone|first1=Harold A.|title=Understanding Electronic Contracts - The Indian Law of Contract|url=http://www.nalsarpro.org/CL/Modules/Module%201/Chapter3.pdf|website=Nalsar Pro|accessdate=3 April 2018|date=9 April 2013}}
21. ^{{cite web|title=Stonehill Capital Management LLC v. Bank of the West, 28 NY 3d 439 (2016)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9580463301815278461|website=Google Scholar|publisher=Google|accessdate=3 April 2018}}
22. ^Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893
23. ^Wade v Simeon (1846) 2 CB 548
24. ^White v Bluett (1853) 2 WR 75
25. ^Bronaugh R. (1976). Agreement, Mistake, and Objectivity in the Bargain Theory of Conflict. William & Mary Law Review.
26. ^{{Cite book|title=Principles of Irish Contract Law|last=Enright|first=Máiréad|publisher=Clarus Press|year=2007|isbn=|location=Dublin 8|pages=75|quote=|via=}}
27. ^Scots lawyer Harvey McGregor's "Contract Code", a Law Commission-sponsored proposal to both unite and codify English and Scots Law, proposed the abolition of consideration.
28. ^e.g. In Germany, § 311 BGB
29. ^e.g. P.S. Atiyah, 'Consideration: A Restatement' in Essays on Contract (1986) p.195, Oxford University Press
30. ^¹{{cite BAILII |litigants=Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd |year=2007 |court=EWCA |division=Civ |num=1329 |parallelcite=[1947] KB 130 |courtname=auto}}.
31. ^Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701 in which the wrappers from three chocolate bars was held to be part of the consideration for the sale and purchase of a musical recording.
32. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes#2|title=Frequently Asked Questions on Gift Taxes|website=www.irs.gov|access-date=2016-05-26}}
33. ^"Pinnel’s Case" (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a
34. ^"Jorden v Money" (1854) 5 HLC 185
35. ^"Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd {1990} 1 All ER 512."
36. ^Collins v. Godefroy (1831) 1 B. & Ad. 950.
37. ^see for a discussion of the position in English law, the article on Capacity in English law
38. ^Elements of a Contract - Contracts
39. ^¹L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394.
40. ^¹{{cite AustLII|HCA|52|2004|litigants=Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(2004) 219 CLR 165 |courtname=auto |date=11 November 2004}}.
41. ^for instance, bidding in auctions, or acting in response to a unilateral offer
42. ^¹{{cite BAILII |litigants=Hadley v Baxendale |court=EWHC |year=1854 |num=J70 |parallelcite=ER 145 |courtname=auto}}.
43. ^as in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd and The Mihalis Angelos
44. ^Michida S. (1992) Contract Societies: Japan and the United States Contrasted. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal.
45. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.business.gov.au/people/contractors/understanding-contracts/laws-affecting-contracts|title=Laws affecting contracts|last=business.gov.au|first=|date=2018-07-18|website=www.business.gov.au|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2018-09-14}}
46. ^In Australia, the Sales of Goods Act applies.
47. ^Trans-Lex.org: international principle
48. ^{{cite book|last=Burchfield|first=R.W.|title=The New Fowler's Modern English Usage.|date=1998|publisher=Clarendon Press|location=Oxford|isbn=0198602634|pages=820–821|edition=Revised 3rd|quote=Expressed or conveyed by speech instead of writing; oral... e.g. verbal agreement, contract, evidence}}
49. ^{{cite book|author=Bryan A. Garner|title=Black's Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y40jmgEACAAJ|year=1999|publisher=West Publishing Company|isbn=978-0-314-15234-3}}
50. ^Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
51. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|83|1906|litigants=Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson |parallelcite=(1906) 4 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 379 |courtname=auto |date=18 December 1906}}.
52. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|4|1993|litigants=Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon |parallelcite=(1993) 176 CLR 344 |courtname=auto}}.
53. ^¹{{cite BAILII |litigants=BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings |year=1977 |court=UKPC |num=13 |format=1 |parallelcite=(1977) 180 CLR 266 |courtname=auto |juris=Australia}}.
54. ^Martin, E [ed] & Law, J [ed], Oxford Dictionary of Law, ed6 (2006, London:OUP).
55. ^Fry v. Barnes (1953) 2 D.L.R. 817 (B.C.S.C)
56. ^Hillas and Co. Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd. (1932) 147 LT 503
57. ^See Aiton Australia Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd (1999) 153 FLR 236 Thompson Reuters
58. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|71|1968|litigants=Whitlock v Brew |parallelcite=(1968) 118 CLR 445 |date=31 October 1968 |courtname=auto}}.
59. ^Three Rivers Trading Co., Ltd. v. Gwinear & District Farmers, Ltd. (1967) 111 Sol. J. 831
60. ^"Cutter v Powell" (1795) 101 ER 573
61. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.upcounsel.com/types-of-contractual-terms|title=Types Of Contractual Terms: Everything You Need to Know|website=UpCounsel|language=en|access-date=2018-09-14}}
62. ^¹Gillies P. (1988). Concise Contract Law, [https://books.google.com/books?id=H0MdPMgEMbAC&pg=PA105 p. 105]. Federation Press.
63. ^¹{{cite AustLII|HCA|66|1938|litigants=Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1938) 61 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Rpeorts}} 286 |courtname=auto |date=23 December 1938}}.
64. ^Koffman L, MacDonald E. (2007). The Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
65. ^¹Burling JM. (2011). Research Handbook on International Insurance Law and Regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
66. ^Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 QBD 410
67. ^Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
68. ^As added by the Sale of Goods Act 1994 s4(1).
69. ^¹Primack MA. (2009). Representations, Warranties and Covenants: Back to the Basics in Contracts. National Law Review.
70. ^¹²³⁴West GD, Lewis WB. (2009). Contracting to Avoid Extra-Contractual Liability—Can Your Contractual Deal Ever Really Be the "Entire" Deal? The Business Lawyer.
71. ^Ferara LN, Philips J, Runnicles J. (2007). Some Differences in Law and Practice Between U.K. and U.S. Stock Purchase Agreements. Jones Day Publications.
72. ^Telman J. (2012). Representations and Warranties. ContractsProf Blog.
73. ^Bannerman v White [1861] EngR 713; (1861) 10 CBNS 844, Court of Common Pleas (United Kingdom).
74. ^¹Bissett v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177.
75. ^{{Cite web|url=https://study.com/academy/lesson/implied-terms-in-a-contract-definition-explanation.html|title=Implied Terms in a Contract: Definition & Explanation - Video & Lesson Transcript {{!}} Study.com|website=study.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-14}}
76. ^The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64.
77. ^{{cite BAILII|litigants=J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw |year=1956 |court=EWCA |division=Civ |num=3 |parallelcite=[1956] 2 All ER 121 |courtname=auto}}.
78. ^Hutton v Warren [1836] M&W 466.
79. ^¹{{cite AustLII|HCA|14|1986|litigants=Con-stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd |parallelcite=(1986) 160 CLR 226 |courtname=auto |date=11 April 1986}}.
80. ^Dunlop v Selfridge' [1915] AC 79 House of Lords (UK).
81. ^Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 House of Lords (UK).
82. ^Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762
83. ^Scruttons v Midland Silicones [1962] AC 446 House of Lords (UK).
84. ^{{cite BAILII |year=1974 |court=UKPC |num=4 |litigants=NZ Shipping v Satterthwaite |parallelcite=[1975] AC 154 |courtname=auto |juris=New Zealand}}.
85. ^Adler v Dickson [1955] QB 158
86. ^Lord Denning declared that the doctrine had been abolished by 1925 property legislation, but he was overruled by the House of Lords.
87. ^The 1999 Act does not cover contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, which are instead subject to the Hague-Visby Rules
88. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02s05.php|title=Are you bound once you sign a contract?|last=|first=|date=11 December 2009|website=Legal Services Commission of South Australia|publisher=|access-date=10 October 2016}}
89. ^Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 305
90. ^{{cite AustLII|NSWStRp|19|1928|litigants=Fitzpatrick v Michel |parallelcite=(1928) 28 SR (NSW) 285 |date=2 April 1928 |courtname=auto}}.
91. ^{{cite AustLII|VicRp|31|1978|litigants=Public Trustee v Taylor |parallecite=[1978] VR 289 |date=9 September 1977 |courtname=auto}}.
92. ^Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1931] ALL E.R. Rep. 1, [1932] A.C. 161
93. ^see also {{cite AustLII|HCA|55|1956|litigants=Svanosi v McNamara |parallelcite= |courtname=auto |date=}}.
94. ^{{cite BAILII|court=EWCA |division=Civ |year=2002 |num=1407 |litigants=Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd] |courtname=auto}}.
95. ^¹{{cite AustLII|HCA|79|1951|litigants=McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission |parallelcite=(1951) 84 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 377 |courtname=auto |date=}}.
96. ^Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 Hurl. & C. 906.
97. ^Smith v. Hughes [1871].
98. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|5|1983|litigants=Taylor v Johnson |parallelcite= |courtname=auto |date=}}.
99. ^{{cite BAILII|court=EWCA |division=Civ |num=4 |year=1971 |litigants=Lewis v Avery |parallelcite=[1971] 3 All ER 907 |courtname=auto}}.
100. ^Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
101. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|41|1936|litigants=Johnson v Buttress |parallelcite=(1936) 56 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 113 |courtname=auto |date=17 August 1936}}.
102. ^See also {{cite AustLII|VicRp|29|1982|litigants=Westmelton (Vic) Pty Ltd v Archer and Shulman |parallecite= |courtname=auto |date=}}.
103. ^Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist., 246 Cal. App. 2d 123 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1966)
104. ^¹{{cite AustLII|HCA|14|1983|litigants=Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio |parallelcite=(1983) 151 CLR 447 |courtname=auto |date=12 May 1983}}.
105. ^see also {{cite AustLII|HCA|81|1956|litigants=Blomley v Ryan |parallelcite=(1956) 99 CLR 362 |courtname=auto |date=}}.
106. ^{{Cite web|url=http://consumerlaw.gov.au/the-australian-consumer-law/legislation/|title=Legislation – Australian Consumer Law|website=consumerlaw.gov.au|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-14}}
107. ^Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell 147 D.L.R (4th) 268 (N.C.S.A.). 1996 case and 1997 appeal.
108. ^Tenet v. Doe, {{ussc|544|1|2005}}.
109. ^{{cite journal|last1=Farnsworth|first1=E. Allen|title=Legal Remedies for Breach of Contract|journal=Columbia Law Review|date=November 1970|volume=70|issue=7|pages=1145–1216|jstor=1121184}}
110. ^{{cite book|last1=Rowan|first1=Solène|title=Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of Performance|date=2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0199606609|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3TofAQAAQBAJ|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
111. ^{{cite journal|last1=Ward|first1=A.A.|title=Circumventing the Supremacy Clause - Understanding the Constitutional Implications of the United States' Treatment of Treaty Obligations through an Analysis of the New York Convention|journal=San Diego International Law Journal|date=2005|volume=7|page=491|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/sdintl7&div=24&id=&page=|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
112. ^{{cite web|title=Why Arbitration in Intellectual Property?|url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/why-is-arb.html|website=WIPO|publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
113. ^See, e.g., {{cite journal|last1=Edwards|first1=Harry T.|title=Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Awards: The Clash Between the Public Policy Exception and the Duty to Bargain|journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review|date=1988|volume=64|issue=1|page=4|url=http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2709&context=cklawreview|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
114. ^New York Civil Procedure Law and Rules § 7501, et seq.
115. ^{{cite web|title=Uniform Arbitration Act (1956 Act or 2000 Act)|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol7#arbit|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
116. ^{{cite news|last1=Bernard|first1=Tara S.|title=Taking a Broker to Arbitration|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/your-money/a-closer-look-at-the-arbitration-process-for-investors.html|accessdate=13 August 2017|agency=New York Times|date=18 July 2014}}
117. ^{{cite news|last1=Cleaver|first1=Joanne|title=What Your Financial Advisor’s Mandatory Arbitration Clause Means for You|url=https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2014/08/28/what-your-financial-advisors-mandatory-arbitration-clause-means-for-you|accessdate=13 August 2017|agency=U.S. News & World Report|date=28 August 2014}}
118. ^{{cite web|last1=Larson|first1=Aaron|title=Common Contract Clauses|url=https://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_clauses.html#choice-of-law-and-forum-clause|website=ExpertLaw.com|accessdate=10 October 2017|date=22 July 2016}}
119. ^{{cite journal|last1=Healy|first1=James J.|title=Consumer Protection Choice of Law: European Lessons for the United States|journal=Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law|date=2008|volume=19|page=535|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=djcil|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
120. ^{{cite web|title=Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32008R0593|website=Eur-Lex|accessdate=10 October 2017|date=17 June 2008}}
121. ^{{Cite web|url=https://guides.lib.monash.edu/commercial-law/contract-law|title=Commercial law: Contract law|last=|first=|date=|website=Monash University|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}
122. ^See, e.g., {{cite journal|last1=Mullenix|first1=Linda A.|title=Another Choice of Forum, Another Choice of Law: Consensual Adjudicatory Procedure in Federal Court|journal=Fordham Law Review|date=1988|volume=57|page=291|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr57&div=20&id=&page=|accessdate=10 October 2017}}
123. ^Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 1 All ER 474; see also {{cite AustLII|HCA|24|1951|litigants=Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks |parallelcite=(1951) 83 CLR 322 |courtname=auto}}.
124. ^The Mihailis Angelos [1971] 1 QB 164
125. ^{{cite BAILII |year=1914 |court=UKHL |num=1 |litigants=Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd |parallelcite=[1915] AC 79 at 86 per Lord Dunedin |courtname=auto}}.
126. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|36|1954|litigants=Bellgrove v Eldridge |parallelcite=(1954) 90 CLR 613 |date=20 August 1954 |courtname=auto}}.
127. ^[1972] 1 QB 60
128. ^The UCC states, "Consequential damages... include any loss... which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise." UCC 2-715.In English law the chief authority on mitigation is British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railway Co of London[1912] AC 673, see especially 689 per Lord Haldane.
129. ^M.P. Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston's Law of Contract, 15th edn (OUP: Oxford, 2007) p.779.
130. ^M.P. Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston's Law of Contract, 15th edn (OUP: Oxford, 2007) p.779 n.130.
131. ^Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet, The Solholt [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 605.
132. ^See also Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310.
133. ^{{cite web | title = 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution | url = https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html | accessdate = 2008-10-10}}
134. ^as opposed to Scottish law
135. ^In 1789, while the French were engaged in their revolution, the English law was busying itself in defining the rules of auctions: see Payne v Cave
136. ^Willmott, L, Christensen, S, Butler, D, & Dixon, B 2009 Contract Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, North Melbourne
137. ^Hans Wehberg, Pacta Sunt Servanda, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), p.775.; Trans-Lex.org Principle of Sanctity of contracts
138. ^Atiyah PS. (1986) Medical Malpractice and Contract/Tort Boundary. Law and Contemporary Problems.
139. ^However, a movement in the 1990s to replace the separate teaching of contract and tort with a unified law of "obligations" has met with little success.
140. ^Blake V. (2012). When Is a Patient-Physician Relationship Established?. Virtual Mentor.
141. ^Douglas D. (2002). Contract Rights and Civil Rights. Michigan Law Review.
142. ^¹²Bernstein DE. (2008). Freedom of Contract. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 08-51.
143. ^... indeed the Code was neither published nor adopted by the UK, instead being privately published by an Italian University
144. ^Beatson, Anson's Law of Contract (1998) 27th ed. OUP, p.21