Agreement In Law Definition

Not all agreements are necessarily contractual, as the parties are generally considered to be legally bound. A «gentlemen`s agreement» should not be legally applicable and «compulsory only in honour.» [6] [7] Finally, a modern concern, which has increased in contract law, is the increasing use of a particular type of contract called «contract contracts» or «formal contracts». This type of contract may be beneficial to some parties, due to the convenience and ability of the strong party in a case to force the terms of the contract to a weaker party. For example, mortgage contracts, leases, online sales or notification contracts, etc. In some cases, the courts consider these membership contracts with particular scrutiny because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, injustice and unacceptable. In certain circumstances, an unspoken contract may be established. A contract is implied when the circumstances imply that the parties have entered into an agreement when they have not expressly done so. For example, John Smith, a former lawyer, can implicitly enter into a contract by going to a doctor and being examined; If the patient refuses to pay after the examination, the patient has broken an implied contract. A contract implied by law is also called quasi-contract because it is not actually a contract; Rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unfairly enriched if it were not obliged to compensate the other. The Quanten Meruit claims are an example. An agreement is a far-reaching approach that involves any agreement or agreement between two or more parties on their rights and obligations. Such informal agreements often take the form of «gentlemen`s agreements», in which compliance with the terms of the agreement is based on the honour of the parties concerned and not on external means of implementation. In a certain sentence of treaties, the parties to the negotiation must behave with the utmost fidelity (or «uberrima fides») by revealing all the essential facts.

In one of the earliest cases, Carter v Boehm,[274] Mr. Carter purchased an insurance policy for losses incurred at a British East India Company naval fortress in Sumatra, but did not tell his insurer Boehm that the fort was built solely to withstand attacks by the inhabitants and that the French were likely to invade. Lord Mansfield felt that the policy was not valid. As insurance is a speculative contract and the particular facts «most often knowingly of the insured,» Mr. Carter excludes «hiding what he knows in private.» The same policy has been extended for the sale of shares in a company. Thus, the developer and later director of a mining company from Guano to Erlanger against New Sombrero Phosphate Co[275] did not disclose that he had paid the mineral rights to The Island of Sombrero half of what he had subsequently assessed.

Comments are closed.