Search results

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.

The digital medium has created new ways of contracting through web pages and smartphone apps. The websites and apps put numerous terms of contract. In some cases, the user is required to click on them, and other times, the user may or may not even notice the terms. Are the terms put by the sites and apps binding? The case explores the theme with the Uber Case, a judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the application of the terms in the Uber app.

Most business contracts are meant to be in writing, on standard terms. However, with the facilities of communications, businesspersons will talk business on the phone. With this, contentions will arise, whether they were only negotiating or had gone the distance and made a contract. If they have contracted, what are the terms of the contract? The case explores the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgement, Wells v Devani, which is on the theme of oral contracts.

A buyer company has an advance payment stuck with the seller company and acts cautiously in not paying further till they get control over the goods. Claiming this to be a breach, the seller terminates the contract and makes claim for the damages. The seller picks all legal points it could in the routine business practices to escape the unfortunate situation. The judgment in the Toba Trade Case gives a comprehensive view of several legal themes including, payment and delivery, variation of contract, termination, anticipatory breach, award of damages and unjust enrichment.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

All business-to-business contracts have now come to be done on standard contract terms. Every company has its General Conditions of Contract on which it would deal with its customers. Business parties negotiate, converge and do business with each other. However, if a dispute arises, both the parties claim that there is a contract between them. And each party also claims that the contract is on its terms. The claim is important, for each party sets terms favourable to itself. This is called the ‘battle of forms’. The Butler Machine Tool Case of the Court of Appeal explores the rules of this battle.

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

The central lesson to be learned from studying the case is to understand the challenges and constraints posed by contextual conditions in designing contracts in public–private partnerships (PPP) for financing and delivering health care in emerging economies such as India.

Perverse incentives, along with contextual conditions, led to extensive opportunistic behaviors among involved agencies, limiting the effectiveness of otherwise highly regarded innovative design of the program.

India’s “Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana” or National Health Insurance Program, launched in 2007 provided free health insurance coverage to protect millions of low-income families from getting pushed into poverty due to catastrophic health-care expenditure. The program was implemented through a PPP using standardized contracts between multiple stakeholders from the public and private sector – insurance companies, hospitals, intermediaries, the provincial and federal government.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS: 10 Public Sector Management.