Malaysia Mining Corporation BHD †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Malaysia Mining Corporation BHD. Answer: Introduction: Nick who is a leader of a political party named The Blue Party is going to organize an open-air rally in Sydney so that he could publicize the party. Nick had a contract with John to provide with catering facilities at a cost of 5000$. Hanson who supports Nick agreed to fly an aircraft in which he would trail the banner of the party and he also committed that he would provide the services free of cost. Ian who supports the party tells that in writing that he would pay the party 10000$ to meet with the expenses. Nick is really assuring the fact that the Rally should go successfully so at the last minute he fixed to pay John a bonus so that he could take care of all the things and make sure that everything went smoothly. He is also feared by the fact that the opposing party might propose distress, so he also agreed to pay 3000$ to police for protection. After all these efforts, the rally was a great success However, Nick refused to pay the prescribed amount to police and to the john out of the fact that the cost of flying aircraft went beyond it is expected and the nick must compensate the excess amount to Hanson. Also, the help of 10000$ from Ian got cancelled as he suffered huge losses in his business recently. ISSUE: The issue arises whether Nick is liable to pay bonus amount under the contract law or not as he promised to pay $1000 bonus with the amount of contract with john to provide catering services? Rule: According to the details given, this case is like Williams v Roffey brothers Nicholls (1989)4. In both cases one party agrees to pay for the services provided by the other party. Also, one party agrees to pay bonus if the things run smoothly whereas the cost of catering is the part of contract. So, according to the contract a person is liable to pay only that amount which is agreed to pay in the contract. The plaintiff cannot sue the other party for the amount which is not part of contractual agreement. Application: In this case, Nick and John both entered into a contract and it has been clearly stated that John was booked by Nick for providing catering services for $5000. The contract existed claiming there was some work done by John for Nick and that too was done for a prize money, but he may not have a valid claim for $1000 as, he was already contractually obliged to provide catering services. So, it is not necessary that Nick need to pay $1000 promise to pay an additional amount for an existing duty which is not under that contract. Conclusion: so, there was no written contract between Nick and John for the payment of $1000 and Nick is bound to pay $5000 for the catering services. Nick and the police Issue: Does Nick have compulsion to pay $3000 to police which he promised to pay, or can he refuse to pay the amount for the amenities which is generally a duty. The main issue is that what are the legal obligations for this promise? Rule: This case is very similar to Gladbrook Brothers limited v Glam organ country council (1925)2. In this case, police officers were requested to provide extra security at the entrance of coal mine rather than normal patrolling. According to the police act (1840), section 19. Decision was made that if any organisation performs an act as their part of duty then they cannot take extra money. However, if that organisation performs job beyond the part of normal scope than the individual must pay for getting extra protection from police officials. Application: As Nick had asked the police officials for providing him additional protection so, the police in return of this request made an offer of 3000$ to perform the duties and this offer was agreed to be paid by Nick by an acceptance. These two components of offer and acceptance result in the formation of a contract between both parties. Now as it has been stated that Nick is refusing to pay the police the promised sum of 3000$ which was decided in the contract. Then, in this case, Nick is breaching the terms of the contract and the police in such a case can sue Nick for not giving the promised amount. It has not been stated that the contract was in writing or not. As the things are not stated so it is assumed that the contract done was in writing only. Conclusion: It is clearly stated that Nick is breaching the law by refusing to pay $3000 for the extra services provided by the police. So, Nick is liable to pay according to his promise. Issue: what are the legal obligations between Nick and Hanson for the compensation of amount incurred by Hanson? Rule: This case very similar to the case Price v Southern cross television3. There was an informal contract among the two parties binding each other. It is stated that there was a mutual understanding between Hanson and Nick for providing services to Nick for free of cost. Application: In both cases, there was agreement to provide the services for free, so this way no contract existed between both parties. There was also no money involved. In, Nick and Hansons case, Hanson realize later that expenses which Nick decides to compensate but, later he failed to repay. Conclusion: In conclusion, there was no lawful or formal contract between Nick and Hanson. Nick is not legally obliged to pay any amount to Hanson. Nick and Ian Issue: Does Ian have a legal obligation to pay Nick as he promises to pay $10000 to support the rally? Rule: In this case, there is a fact that Ian sends a letter of comfort to Nick for building trust in his political party which is a statement of confidence towards Nicks party. This letter is an offer by Ian. According to contractual law offer needs to be accepted by other party. Moreover, these kinds of letters do not apply to a guarantee because for a contract there should be a legal bound between two parties for it be enforceable. Application: I found a similar case Kleinwort Benson ltd v Malaysia mining Corporations in which, it is stated that a person should not be legally obliged if there is only a letter of comfort. It is not a contractual promise where there is no guarantee for the payment. So, Ian is not legally responsible to pay $10000 to Nick because it was just an expression to show his support to Nicks rally not guaranteeing the payment. Also, there was no letter of acceptance of the contract. Conclusion: As per law, Ian is not liable to pay any money to Nick because it was just a promise not a guarantee of payment or there was no letter of acceptance for that offer which resulted that law is not enforceable in this case. This way the discussions clearly indicate the states of contextual obligation between the parties and what steps could be taken by them in such cases to get their contractual money back. References Williams v Roffey Bros Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5. Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council [1924] UKHL 3 (19 December 1924) Price v Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd [2014] TASSC 70 Kleinwort Benson (KB) v Malaysia Mining Corporation BHD (MMC BHD) [1989] 1 WLR 379