Aboriginals and Child Obesity Essay

In the hypothetical situation, Grump declines to fulfill the contract’s stipulated obligations. The dispute stems from a disagreement he had with one of the developers, though. According to reports, Grump is willing to continue playing his part in the plan if the problem is resolved. (Pathak, 2013). Here, a number of issues come into play. First, one must check to see if the agreement specifically mentions the point of dispute. Significantly, the agreement includes predetermined channels for resolving potential disputes. Therefore, if the issue is highlighted and it appears that the developer contravened the terms and conditions of the contract, then it cannot be considered as an abandonment of performance. Secondly, Grump has not abandoned the entire process, as he is ready to continue with the agreed terms if the conflict is solved. Thus, he creates the perception that he is still committed to the fulfillment of the deal but with a contemplation that the issues are sorted out.

Pathak (2013) argues that in agreement, there are times that one’s promise is evaluated not from what is written, but the commitment demonstrated to fulfill it. In some cases, there are parties to a covenant that keep on creating obstacles to limit chances of solving conflicts. Contrarily, in this context, Grump has demonstrated his readiness to participate in a process that would resolve the dispute. As such, it cannot be assumed that his actions are an abandonment of performance. Evidently, he has not raised an issue concerning the sharing of proceeds from the deal. Further, by indicating that he is ready to continue working after what he addresses is solved is a demonstration of his desire to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

Question Two

In the agreement, the liquidated damages regulation is meant to protect either party from loss due to non-performance. The treaties ensure that the benefits of each member are protected from unscrupulous tendencies. In most cases, individuals agree with the intention of meeting particular objectives. According to Sun, Edara, and Mackley (2013), the function of the provision is to carry out an evaluation that addresses how to compensate losses that may arise due to non-performance. However, certain legal matters are supposed to be followed before it is known if this Act of arbitration is enforceable. For a liquidated damages clause to be valid, the loss that is associated with non-performance of the contract should be hard to estimate (Sun, Edara, & Mackley, 2013). In some scenarios, it is difficult to determine the value of loss that is caused by a breach of contract. Therefore, in such cases, the provision becomes essential in solving such a dilemma.

For the case of Grump, it is challenging to determine the loss because it is not certain what amount the company will generate in a particular period. The arrangement depends on the response of the customers. Considerably, this is different from a situation such as the sale of property where every party has the precise amount that is expected from the deal. As such, the liquidated damages clause of this case study satisfies the first legal considerations that make it either enforceable or not. The second factor that determines the implementation of a liquidated damages provision is whether the indicated amount is an ideal forecast or a just form of compensation. Considerably, the forecasted amount $2 million is a fair compensation because the company would have invested it in the deal. Therefore, value validates the clause in this case study.

References

Pathak, A. (2013). Legal aspects of business. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Sun, C., Edara, P., & Mackley, A. (2013). Refocusing on liquidated damages in incentive/disincentive contracts. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 5(3), 136-141.