View Full Version : Error in your material...F4
teju2000
10-12-07, 09:54 AM
i draw the kind attention of moderator and CEO of Getthrough Guide about error in F4 subject material...Section B - The law of obligation...page No-2
Explaination of error....
Point No. 1 ...explaination on analyse the nature of simple contract...
Example is ...A contract to kill a person is a void contract, as killing is not allowed legally!...----is void contract...
This is either not right example or right explaination on void contract...
In my opinion...there is thin difference in void agreement - void contract and illegal agreement...its pure example of illegal agreement...
void contract means the contract which was valid when made but now cease to enforecable either because of change in circumstances or change in law.
Logically speaking...contract is an agreement which is enforceable...is killing someone enforceable ????
Any agreement made for any activity which is prohibited under any law is known as illegal agreement which is not enforceable at all...
I hope you got my point...its only with intention of helping students...
You have made a gr8 point but I believe that the way Void contracts been told in the book is somewhat similar
A contract to kill a person is a void contract, as killing is not allowed legally!...----is void contract...
Now ofcourse killing is illegal. So now If I make up a contract in my home with John that we are to kill Tom. So in our sense we have made up a contract but LEGALLY it is not a contract.
In our eyes it may be a contact but not in the legal eyes.
So I'll go to court and say " Hey you Judge ! We have already made this contract!"
Judge would say " Acid , This is a void contract"
So thats what the point is trying to establish i guess.
I believe that the text and you same the same thing through different angles.
Best regards,
Acid
A void contract, also known as a void agreement, is not actually a contract. A void contract cannot be enforced by law. Void contracts are different from voidable contracts, which are contracts that may be (but not necessarily will be) nullified.
An agreement to carry out an illegal act is an example of a void contract or void agreement. For example, a contract between drug dealers and buyers is a void contract simply because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go to court to enforce the contract, although some drug users mistakenly believe the opposite, and therefore take their disputes to court.
________________________
Now If we take the above definition of Void contact then the example given in the Study text may seem to be true.
Because in the eyes of parties to contract it is a valid contract and a valid agreement.
But in the eyes of Law. This is an illegal agreement and hence an illegal contract.
I dont find any error in the Study text to this effect
Really , in either way it doesnt seems like an error to me.
Kind regards,
Acid
teju2000
10-12-07, 11:48 AM
is there any difference between agreement and contract ? if so...
how can u say that void contract and void agreement is same and one thing ?
technically there is no illegal contract....it stop and remain in stage of agreement which is not enforceable.....
Refer Keens & smith 7th edision.....
or book from pearson.....on business law....
Well as in the book we were talking about "Void Contract" . So now as I refered in my example . To kill Tom can become a agreement between me and John.
So this is just an agreement i.e. To Kill Tom
We wrote our agreement in a paper , signed it up thinking that It has now became a contract.
Now we take it to the court.
The court says that this is an void agreement as to Kill someone is is not an agreement , Hence Void agreement
Now Court have a Void agreement on the desk which is formally signed to give the shape of a contract.
The court decides that for a contract to be enforcable it must have a valid agreement . But It doesnt have a valid agreement hence it is void and the contract based on void agreement is also void!
I dont say that Agreement and Contract are the same thing . But If any contract has been made on void agreement then the contract is void. Just like a contact without consideration is not enforaceble in law although its a contract!
CONTRACT - An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. The agreement can be formal, informal, written, oral or just plain understood. Some contracts are required to be in writing in order to be enforced. (2) An agreement between two or more parties which creates obligations to do or not do the specific things that are the subject of that agreement. Examples of a contract are a lease, a promissory note, or a rental agreement.
This term, in its more extensive sense, includes every description of agreement, or obligation, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money, or to do or omit to do a certain act; or, a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation. In its more confined sense, it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are hound to each other, or one is bound to the other. Blackstone defines it to be an agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing. A contract has also been defined to be a compact between two or more persons.
So note , in this definition of Contract it doesnt say that AGREEMENT SHOULD BE FORCABLE.
Because for any contract in which the agreement is of illegal nature , In Law Its termed as Void Contract.
Kind regards,
Acid
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do, not do, or promise something. Contracts can come in many forms — they can be oral or written, implied or express, and legally enforceable or not. The strongest contract, in terms of enforceability, has an offer, acceptance, consideration for the exchange, clearly sets out the terms of the agreement without ambiguity, and is signed by the involved parties with proper capacity to enter into the contract. Weaker contracts include verbal agreements or contracts drawn up by parties in direct violation of state or federal laws. There are numerous aspects related to valid contracts; in fact, an entire course in law school is often devoted to contract law.
While we tend to think of written contracts when we talk about contracts, the most common type of contract is actually an oral contract. In fact, we pretty much enter into at least one oral contract every day. For example, a parent might tell his or her child that they will get a reward if they behave properly at a certain event. If the child agrees, then you have a type of oral contract — albeit one that isn't legally binding!
Contracts can be implied or express. That is, the entire contract, or one or more of its terms, can be implied or express. Typically, when we think of contracts we think of express contracts. For example, in a contract for a monetary loan, you will likely promise to pay a certain monthly rate at a certain interest rate until the loan is paid off. In addition, you probably will agree to late payment fees as well. These terms are explicitly laid out in an express, written contract.
Sometimes, however, a contract term or the entire contract itself is implied. For example, when you order food at a restaurant you are entering into a implied, oral contract. You and the server do not explicitly state the offer and acceptance for the steak you ordered with a list price of 32 US Dollars (USD) but that agreement is implied. The basic elements of a contract, namely an offer, acceptance of the offer, and consideration for the exchange, are all implied.
Offer and acceptance, sometimes also called “meeting of the minds” is a fundamental part to a contract. Without it, we might bind parties to contracts who did not want or intend to be party to the contract. Consideration, on the other hand, ensures that something is being exchanged. In some cases, the law requires that consideration be adequate, that is, a relatively reasonable price, or nominal, where just a dollar will do. Other times, the requirement of consideration may be waived in the interest of preventing injustice.
Contracts may be enforceable by law or they may not. The example of the agreement between the parent and child would not be enforceable by law whereas the agreement for a loan likely would be enforceable by law. Whether a contract is enforceable by law depends on numerous factors, the primary factor being whether the parties to contract intended the contract to be legally binding or legally enforceable.
A contract may not be legally enforceable for a variety of factors. Problems on the face of the contract can make it void. If one of the parties to the contract has diminished capacity whether it be due to age or mental condition the contract will most likely be unenforceable. Fraud or misrepresentation by a party to a contract can void the contract as can contract terms that violate controlling laws.
teju2000
11-12-07, 04:05 AM
Dear
There is difference between "void contract" and "contract is void". Study law means study the meaning of words and you must be powerful in interpreting words and its meaning....
Say for example...There is diff between give and offer....both have same meaning...
Give is used when someone has demanded something...example : i give reply...its always in response....
offer is with out being asked or voluntarily....
Any agreement which is enforceable becomes contract. If it is not enforceable, it can never become contract. it remain in stage of agreement. Even if you put the terms and conditions in writing someone, it does not become void contract. it remain in stage of agreement...its purely illegal agreement. and therefore it is void....
Remember one more thing...all illegal agreement are void ab-inition (void from beginning) but all void agreement may not be illegal....
During my teaching career of 10 years and while imparting eduction to 2600 students every year i have observed many does not have clarity on this issue...
i hope our discussion may be fruitful to student community...
thanks
According to the provisions of contract law, there are three essential elements, for the creation of a valid contract. These are:
1. Agreement made by offer and acceptance
2. Intention to create legal relations
3. Consideration
Therefore the legality of agreement is not really emphasised.
If any of the above elements is not present then the contract is not valid i.e. it is void.
If we consider our example of void contract
Example
A contract to kill a person is a void contract, as killing is not allowed legally!
The legality of object is an essential element of a valid contract. A contract that breaks the law is illegal. The courts have recognised that any contract that tends to prejudice any social or economic interest of the country must be forbidden. For example, a contract to defraud the Inland Revenue is not valid as the intention behind the contract is to break the law. Hence this contract is illegal and therefore is void.
In the same way, as Acid has rightly analysed, there can be an agreement made by offer and acceptance to kill a person. As far as the agreement is concerned, it is valid as there is an offer and also acceptance of that offer. However, when it comes to the second essential element of a valid contract, the intention behind this contract is something which is not legal. Therefore the contract is void.
Regards
F4 Author
Fully agreed with F4 Author.
Thank you F4 Author! :)
teju2000
11-12-07, 10:21 AM
hmm...
if A enter in to agreement with B to kill C (Which you say contract) for 10000 pound. A kill c and then if B does not pay to him...my question is whether A can take any action against the B ???
That is what enforceability. If any agreement is not enforceable it never be converted in to contract. Its said by Salmond...
There are 10 elements for any contract to be valid. If any one is missing we can't say its contract. It is seperate section (provision) for checking validity of contract. i think i must post the article on difference between agreement and contract....
The contract between A and B is void as the intention is illegal. So A cannot take any action against B.
Regards
F4 Author
Yes they formed the contract i.e. A and B but because the contract was illegal so it was taken as VOID and because its void its illegal and because its illegal its not enforcable .
teju2000
12-12-07, 02:22 AM
is there any difference between agreement and contract ? You refer any country contract law ...there is no illegal contrcact....its always illegal agreement. Refer the C5 module of CIMA ...
Shall i quote with page and line number ???
Contract based on Illegal agreement is an Illegal contract or a Void Contract.
I dont know what CIMA book says but I hope It says similar to what I think It should say :)
An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself, however. A contract that requires only legal performance, such as the sale of packs of cards to a known gambler, where gambling is illegal, will nonetheless be enforceable. A contract to pay a gambling debt, however, will not.
A famous example in the United States is Bovard v. American HorseEnterprises, 247 Cal. Rptr. 340 (1988), in which the CaliforniaSupreme Court refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia.
In Canada, one cited case of lack of enforceability based on illegality is Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell, 147 D.L.R (4th) 268 (N.C.S.A.), in which a woman forged her husband's signature on 40 cheques, totalling over $58,000. 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 cheques. 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's illegality, and as a result voided status, the bank was forced to return the payments made by the husband.
Contracts in restraint of trade are a variety of illegal contracts and generally will not be enforced unless they are reasonable in the interests of the contracting parties and the public.
So note , In the above information and in the example case of Bovard v. American HorseEnterprises In the US. THe agreement which is illegal was considered as an UN ENFORCABLE contract. So note, The court did take the illegal agreement as a contract although it was void.
Cheers!
Acid
teju2000
13-12-07, 05:15 AM
acid..
thats true that illegal agreement is not enfoceable. Remember contract is always enforceable at one point of time either past or in present. In the case of void contract...it says contract which was valid (enforceable) earlier, now has become unenforceable..(void contract). So anything specifically prohibited under any law is consider as illegal which in simple term as known as void..but two terms togerther can't use in correct sense (i mean void contract in place of illegal agreement)
One more thing, USA does not have any of its law. Their laws are based upon british legal system or Latin legal system. Judgement you have refereered of california court is based upon void contract and not on illegal agreement.
I am talking about ref of cima revsion pack for 2006..refer chapter of contract...it says contract is binding agreement. Binding means enforceable....
Thats true that US have based its laws on UK . Thats why I quoted this out bcoz we are studying the UK Corporate and business law.
My point is still in the effect and I find that case i.e. Killing a man is VOID CONTRACT as very well valid and true , supported by all the facts and case laws given.
Kind regards,
Acid
You said : I am talking about ref of cima revsion pack for 2006..refer chapter of contract...it says contract is binding agreement. Binding means enforceable....
____
Ofcourse a contract is a binding agreement ! The reason the contract of killing a man is not enforcable is bcoz its a void contract!
So again you are talking about a different thing which does not proove that , the pointed out is an error.
Furthermore , this same example is found in GTG and other 2 ACCA studytext providers book and also in exam answers made by ACCA Examiners.
So If ACCA Examiner is happy to commit such a "mistake/error" then I am very well pleased with this example!
teju2000
13-12-07, 09:57 AM
Every human is prone to error. Me and you too...thats our limitation. Acca examinor can also commit mistake..
If Court of USA give some judgement...that is federal court...which might not be well binding to UK Law. This can be taken as reference.
Many time we also observe that judgement delivered by court is reversed in challege...or revised petition. Sometime court also change their dimension over period of time.
Well you are right but there is very low possibilty that ACCA EXAMINER , ALL ACCA STUDY TEXTS and my analysis are are going wrong!
Whatever the outcome is , i dont think its justified to say it an ERROR in the GTG F4 Study text.
Cheers!
Yes everybody is prone to an error agree to that but I think the examiners and the text books involve a lot of research and hard work into preparing them yes the odd error here and there is a strong possibility every textbook contains the same error as mentioned above by Acid then I guess you need to inform the examiner in person yourself!
I agree , mistake is ofcourse possible . But If something which seems correct to all the senses and is approved by all examiners and books and there is no evidence to suggest anything on the contrary then there is very low possibility of it being wrong.
I only say that this is not a mistake and hence not an error. Its wrong to jump up to a conclusion and say its error in the F4 STUDY TEXT .
Take care
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.