Another not so consumer law question.

4743hudsonj

Sorry to post again. But my last post for one of my essays wielded such good responses that i must do so again.

The question is that, if one party(A), has a contractual forbearance with party B to not do an act. But another party (C), forms a contract with the person to do said act. Is the contract between A and C enforceable in law despite already having a duty not to do said act? Will it be a case of it is an enforceable contract between A and C, but the contract between A and B has been broken by A.

I realise that contracts to be binding must not be Trifling, indeterminate, Impossible or illegal. But this is none of those (at least i think so)

The case is basically about a woman offering her postman (yes its a male) £20 for him to put her parcels in a metal case in her porch whilst she is away. He does not do so, leaving them in the open porch, causing them to become wet.

With the fact that the postie should not accept the money in the first place aside (is this illegal or contractually forbidden by RM? If illegal it voids the contract.).

This question is about pre existing duties to another party and how these cannot be present for consideration to be good. I understand (asked a relative who used to be a postie and is now a manager) that posties are bound to take "reasonable care of mail" known as Mail Integrity? (HM owns the mail so it must be taken care of). I also know that it is not legally deemed as delivered mail until it passes through the recipients door (old but apparently good?)

What im getting at is that this postie, agreed to go outside and against an existing duty (to deliver the mail correctly in legal terms) to fulfil a request. Would this be deemed as a legally binding contract the same as if somebody did MORE rather than the opposite of what their contract required. Ie like what happened in Hartley v Ponsonby1857?

Or would this not be classed the same and the fact he had a contractual (not sure if its legal) duty to not do said act, mean the contract between him and the lady never became binding?

Sorry, it is all a mess but i cant think of any other way to convey the masses of information on this without writing a whole essay to get an answer for an essay.

I believe that they did have a contract personally, as he did something he wasnt contracted for (contracted not to do yes), and so this would be good consideration, and the contractual obligations under RM wouldnt even enter the argument.

Am i right or have i got it all wrong? Any similar case law if im wrong?

Anihilator

Imo

2 Seperate issues

1) The fee paid to the postie. Woman has a recourse against them for breach of contract and compensation if and only if a valid contract exists. Very hard to prove I would imagine

2) The accepting of a fee etc would be an issue of contract law between RM and the postie and subject to discliplinary and dismissal etc, possibly escalated to legal action if against the law.

4743hudsonj

Anihilator wrote: »

Imo

2 Seperate issues

1) The fee paid to the postie. Woman has a recourse against them for breach of contract and compensation if and only if a valid contract exists. Very hard to prove I would imagine

2) The accepting of a fee etc would be an issue of contract law between RM and the postie and subject to discliplinary and dismissal etc, possibly escalated to legal action if against the law.

Thankyou, thats what i thought and have based my argument on. Im pretty sure none of these things are illegal, just a forbearance in the terms of employment.

I do however know that you can request forms that RM keep and this allows them to deliver without actually posting through the door, without being a breach of contract between RM and sender.

I dont think the person who writes this stuff thinks about it properly.

Some people doing this have only been studying contract law for 2 and a half months now, and they will probably use the case law provided and come up with a very basic argument for an incorrect answer. When you delve deeper and use knowledge then the issues become so complicated that its impossible to answer unless you know the ins and outs of the postal services act, mail integrity and know the differences between what contracted and whats legal to do with postal services.

very silly questions.
Its not even a law course either. Only a business honours with a law module.

Last time i posted a question i got comments how a good law undergraduate wouldnt need to ask these questions:rolleyes:

Anihilator

I wouldnt mention anything about the RM services because its not part of the question or scenario.

Did a bit about contract law a few years ago. Stick to the facts that are explained and try to avoid entering in new circumstances. back up where possible with reference to the relevant law/statute and cases.

Here you should refer to the contract between the woman and the postie. And any contracts between postie and RM in employment terms.

If anything in the question leans towards agency between postie and RM this would be a complication to discuss.

4743hudsonj

Anihilator wrote: »

I wouldnt mention anything about the RM services because its not part of the question or scenario.

Did a bit about contract law a few years ago. Stick to the facts that are explained and try to avoid entering in new circumstances. back up where possible with reference to the relevant law/statute and cases.

Here you should refer to the contract between the woman and the postie. And any contracts between postie and RM in employment terms.

If anything in the question leans towards agency between postie and RM this would be a complication to discuss.

Taken on board :T