Contest for local office, just like contests for national offices is vast on some things. It is comprehensive and almost touches on all matters pertaining use of right channels in political practices. The law is well articulated in the politics tort as well as the contested regulation, but the two bear a direct relation to the American National Constitution. Candidate recruitment, for instance, is an agreement between two or more parties with promises over specific terms of the contract. Contest tort, on the other hand, is the standard rules proving liability for cases arising based on political matters (Bolino, Mark, Anthony and William, 2017 p1816). They are majorly concerned with the political view of the contest and the relations that exist thereof.
A person’s rights and remedies towards local office contest are as discussed in the following discussions about the issue of adherence to the rules of the competition of local governments in a close link to the contract law.
Legal Issues in the Case under Study
It should be clear that the terms of the contract for Ben and Carl should be at first definite and precise to the point to avoid inconveniences associated with the contract. The reason for ensuring definiteness and certainty of the terms of the agreement is to help deal with issues of equity (Yoon, Jiso and Ki-young Shin, 2017 p363). In cases of overlap it should be noted that in law, investment should not be used as a measure for determination or enforcement of the invalidity of the contractor in case define vagueness of the contract in the form that it gives orders to interested parties on how to perform.
This is what creates the contract since proposition is the acceptance of the offers made by Ben. The recognition of a general rule once has been made cannot in any way get withdrawn or alter any terms of the offer (Swain, Katie and Pei-te Lien, 2017 p128). It has no mandate of modification of the offer. Any effort to modify the proposal from the first party is a counteroffer and is against the law.
Quoting from the Newspaper, Wang wanted a cooperation from Ngan on a particular development project in Xi’an Quijiang, China that Wang had initiated and planned for in advance. Ngan made an offer to the other part to cooperate with her over the project. The agreement for the cooperation was signed on 26 February 2007 (Bolino, Mark, Anthony and William, 2017 p1816). Regarding the signing agreement, Wang was presumed to accept the offer. The offer acceptance should be as open as this and Wang has no room to modify the proposal but accept it or reject it on first notification before signing the contract foam.
Candidates Rights to Join Office
The exclusion clause about Ben and Carl case is focused on reimbursement of $ 200,000 other than holding back on the issue for later revocation of the $25,000 that is a Bonus plus court penalty on Ben for failure to honor the terms of the contract. Carl’s rights are way too many for instance arrest of Ben and subjected to court fines worthy the court determined figure on top of the reimbursement. Carl can as well proceed to claim the property on the ground that Ben has revoked the terms of the contract.
Duty of Care and Breach of Duty
A critical look at the reason for making the contract voidable may not be valid about the laws, but the verdict is reached at by the criticality involved in the agreement and case presented by the parties interested before the courts ((Yoon, Jiso and Ki-young Shin, 2017 p384). The problem of subjecting the contract to voidable circumstance by the failure of one of the party to adhere to the promises is another concern. The contract terms are under the custody of Ben and Carl, but for this case, Ben has failed on his part. If he were to be safe in the first instance, he wouldn’t have accepted the proposal.
The law should address the matter from the understanding that failure of one party to adhere to its set promises for the contract enforcement be penalized by court fines. The fine should be proportional to the value of the entire business contract.This would help solve many cases that are still pending in the Saudi Industrial courts since parties make commitments to the agreement and fail as there is no predetermined punishment in the form of penalty to failure in honoring the promises.
Ben, on the other hand, has failed in following the law to the latter over issues related to honoring the promise of the contract. In summary, a case in point takes all the considerations? as provided by the American law which? is in effect is very general to all the sections regarding the allegations contained by Carl (Swain, Katie and Pei-te Lien, 2017 p150). It is in the best interest of the parties involved in the business to take on some issues in regard to aspects of the contracts so as to avoid any breach of the deal. The contract legal relations are determined by the outward actions or merely the actual words of the intended parties and not in any way the concealed intentions in the form of desires in secrecy by the parties.
Any form of illegality or fraud linked to a contract renders the contract invalid if found to be true by the investigative arms of the law. Illegality is committed once the contract terms work against the public policy and more so the Contract Act 1950 provisions in Sections 12 (1, two all through to the entire last section that is section 5).
Any contract about lotteries, horse race, dog races and all forms of gambling are automatically considered illegal by the public policies and the Contract Act 1950. Such agreements do not hold in the Arab nation and spread across all the institutions of jurisdictions in the entire Malaysia (Oliver, Sarah, and Meredith, 2017). In this regard, the law is precise and confident that before entering into any contract that is deemed legal, the parties should be in the position to freely consent the deal. The free consent part of the contract as provided in Section 10(1) “”All the agreements are contracts if only they are made by the free will of parties competent to the deal.
Intention for Creation of Legal Relations
It one of the most fundamental requirements in the formation of the contract whether in written or in oral form. The creation of the legal actions as a section of the agreement should not be done with the aim of making a mutual consent. It is about the meeting of the minds of the parties involved in the contract. It is merely the agreement of the elements of the transactions in line with all the proposed terms and features that which are critical to the deal in place.
The Saudi law courts have it that there is no any contract in place unless the parties involved are willing and readily enter into one. The contract legal relations are determined by the outward actions or merely the actual words of the intended individuals and not in any way the concealed intentions in the form of desires in secrecy by the parties. (Thrasher, Michael et al., 2017 p413). The basis of the argument here is that all parties should be willing enter into an agreement and no party should mislead another party towards accepting the terms which are subject to any negotiations. Any form of pushing the other side towards taking the words or deceptive each other is contrary to the law and as such the contract cannot proceed to the next level unless the allegations are dropped.
Any form of fraud or mistakes highlighted subject the voidable contract case. About a case in point, Wang and Ngan have a business agreement and as such should stick to the terms as stipulated in the earlier promises (Oliver, Sarah, and Meredith, 2017). In that respect, Ngan and Wang’s agreement is legally bound. The parties have no exclusions clauses that have been mentioned, and in that regard, the contract is not subject to avoidable circumstances. The signing of the agreement validates the commitment between the two parties and qualifies the deal for legal bounds.
Conclusion and Advice
The best understanding of the contract laws is that contract performance should by any chance be precise and exact to the point and if there is anything to uphold is respecting the initial terms as set out by the Ben and Carl (Thrasher, Michael et al., 2017 p435). The promises made by the parties( Ben and Carl) involved in the contract in most cases form the most fundamental part of the case if judgment has to be made concerning an issue over business-related affairs in matters of contracts (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016). In reference to Section 38(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 by the American contract law, there is a provision that parties involved in a contract must in all forms perform or offer to play in respect to the promises made during the sealing of the covenant, not unless the performance of the contract has been subject to dispense with by any law in the American business law. Contract performance according to Section 38(1) is evident on the respect accorded to the promise made by the parties engaged in a contract.
The contract laws have failed to capture the effect of time for the enforcement of the contracts. There is no mention of the penalties in respect to delays in signing the contracts as well as failure to honor the timing of the agreement (Thrasher, Michael et al., 2017 p435). The courts, in this case, have been having no platform to base on during the declaration of contracts that fail to address the issue of time for the agreement. It is way loophole that has been created by the Contract Act 1950 together with all its sections and as such something needs to be done to save the situation. When a party to a contract promises to do something at or before a specified period for instance and fails to adhere to the same, the deal becomes voidable.
A critical look at the reason for making the contract voidable may not be valid about the laws, but the verdict is reached at by the criticality involved in the agreement and case presented by the parties interested before the courts.
The problem of subjecting the contract to voidable circumstance by the failure of one of the party to adhere to the promises is another concern. The law should address the matter from the understanding that failure of one side to adhere to its set promises for the contract enforcement be penalized by court fines (Knapp, Charles, Nathan and Harry, 2017). The punishment should be proportional to the value of the entire business contract. This would help solve many cases that are still pending in the Saudi Industrial courts since parties make commitments to the agreement and fail as there is no predetermined punishment in the form of penalty to failure in honoring the promises.
Bolino, Mark C., Anthony C. Klotz, and William H. Turnley. “”The implications of turning down an international assignment: a psychological contracts perspective.”” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28.13 (2017): 1816-1841.
Knapp, Charles L., Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.
Oliver, Sarah, and Meredith Conroy. “”Tough Enough for the Job? How Masculinity Predicts Recruitment of City Council Members.”” American Politics Research (2017): 1532673X17729719.
Swain, Katie EO, and Pei-te Lien. “”Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.”” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38.2 (2017): 128-150.
Thrasher, Michael, et al. “”Candidate ethnic origins and voter preferences: examining name discrimination in local elections in Britain.”” British Journal of Political Science 47.2 (2017): 413-435.
Yoon, Jiso, and Ki-young Shin. “”Opportunities and Challenges to Gender Quotas in Local Politics: The Case of Municipal Council Elections in South Korea.”” Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 23.3 (2017): 363-384.