Part A-Contract law Part B- Case study (letter)

Part A-Contract law Part B- (letter) - Case Study Example As a result, they did not expect the consumer to take them seriously. A misrepresentation, on the other hand, refers to a false statement of fact that a party makes to another party to influence them into entering a contract, even though the statement is not part of the contract. In effect, this makes the contract voidable and the innocent party could repudiate the contract, as well as claim damages (James, 2014: p22). Where a person making the statement knew the real facts and it can be proved, they could not have held their views reasonably as a result, their opinions are taken as statement of fact. In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must make it freely and there should be mutual assent. However, it is possible that pressure to enter into the contract or coercion could affect mutual assent. Undue influence and duress are situations that impact on mutual assent, rendering contracts voidable or void. Duress refers to the exertion of wrongful pressure on a party to coerce them into making a contract that they would not ordinarily enter. It involves threatening to use force or using force intentionally to induce the party to assent to the contract (Carter, 2013: p32). Whether the coercion is mental or physical, it must be to an extent to which the other party does not have freedom of choice or free will, leaving them no reasonable alternative than to assent to the contract. On the other hand, undue influence refers to taking advantage of the other party during the formation of contracts. In this case, the two parties have a relationship, for example, one is superior to the other. Unlike duress that involves the use of direct threats; undue influence involves the use of excessive pressure by a dominant party for the subordinate to assent to the contract, although persuasion alone does not constitute undue influence (Carter, 2013: p33). As a result, the

Choose by your own no specific topic Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Choose by your own no specific topic - Essay Example it were a rational fallacy in perfect harmony with the fallacy of composition; the exposure of such eliminates metaphysical and naturalistic ethics and makes the arguments of intuitionists correct. However, on a deeper analysis, naturalistic fallacy is an assumption, not a tool to resolve the debate. The concept of a naturalistic fallacy has been related to the idea of a split between the descriptive and the normative and between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’. However when the intuitionists confirm the split of the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’, they suggest more than the idea that ethical principles cannot be inferred from non-ethical principles. As pointed out by Moore, ‘pleasantness’ and ‘yellow’ cannot be defined in non-ethical ways, yet they are natural aspects and part of ‘is’ concept. . It is evident that the naturalistic fallacy cannot be considered a logical fallacy, because it could be included even if the premise is true. Of the fallacies known and recognized in philosophy the naturalistic fallacy is the most popular or widely used. For scholars of a given type of ethical theory, which is widespread in the Americas and Europe, and which is diversely referred to as ‘intuitionism’, ‘non-naturalism’, or ‘objectivism’, have often criticized their rivals for perpetrating the naturalistic fallacy (Foot, 2002, 51). Several of these rivals have intensely rejected the accusation of fallacy, others have reacted to it briefly, and in all the concept of a naturalistic fallacy had a major importance in ethical texts. However, despite its popularity and controversy, the naturalistic fallacy has been largely ignored (Foot, 2002), and, thus, this paper analyzes this concept. Specifically, this paper argues that naturalistic fallacy is essential, especially in the field of ethical theory and practice. The naturalistic fallacy was defined and coined in 1903 by G.E. Moore, a British philosopher. According to him, a naturalistic fallacy is