he Differences between Conditions, Warranties and Intermediate Terms in Contract Law Essay Example

he Differences between Conditions, Warranties and Intermediate Terms in Contract Law Essay Example he Differences between Conditions, Warranties and Intermediate Terms in Contract Law Essay he Differences between Conditions, Warranties and Intermediate Terms in Contract Law Essay Name: Course: Lecturer: Date: The Differences between Conditions, Warranties and Intermediate Terms in Contract Law Introduction The law of contract can be described as a legally binding agreement between two or more parties (Stone 5). In the contract, there are usually promises made by the parties in which every party is expected to complete there end of the deal. These promises can be divided into three terms namely conditions, warranties and intermediate. A condition can be described as a term that goes to the root of the contract and non performance of it may lead to the plaintiff getting all the damages (Law of Contract Part 4 471). A warranty is an assurance by one party that a condition is true or it will happen. However, it is not essential, but breach of the contract will result to damages. These are terms which can not be described whether they are warranties of conditions. In case of a breach of a contract, the court has to define the seriousness of the breach instead of classifying whether it is a condition or a warranty (Stone 7). Therefore, this paper is about the difference between these three t erms. Discussion The first difference between the three terms is the seriousness of the terms in a contract. This is where the term is important to the case or not. The term condition is an extremely important term in the law of contract, and when breached it can lead to the plaintiff terminating the contract or claming damages (Collins 12). A warranty is not that essential to the contract as compared to the condition, but breach of a warranty can lead to the plaintiff claiming damages. Intermediate can neither be classified as a condition or a warranty. The court rules on the seriousness of the damages caused to the plaintiff. A good example of a case is Bettini versus Gye (1896). In the case, Bettini an opera singer entered into a contract with Gye where he was supposed to perform in a concert. The contract stated that Bettini was to arrive six days in advance for the concert. However, due to illness he arrived two days late. It was ruled that Gye did not have any right to repudiate the contract, but Bettini was to pay for any damages incurred due to his late arrival. This means that the term that instructed Bettini was to arrive six days in advance was not condition because it was a subsidiary of the main purposes that is performing in the concert (Law of Contract Part 4 473). In the case, performing in the concert was the condition while attending six days in advance was a warranty. Another difference is the remedy given to this three terms in case of a breach. In a contract, when a condition is breached the following remedies could be followed. The plaintiff could repudiate or terminate the contract. The plaintiff could sue for damages. In case of a breach if warranty the only available remedy for the plaintiff is suing for damages. Lastly, in the breach of an intermediate, the court decides based on the damage incurred by the plaintiff. It is clear that the two terms are not totally different from each other in relation to the remedies after a breach (Lloyd’s 32). A good example to show this is the case of Hong Kong Company Limited Versus Kawasaki Kien Limited (1962). In this case, Kawasaki entered into a contract with Hong Kong Fir Shipping Company for shipping services. Hong Kong was to provide Kawasaki with a ship in good service together with competent men. On the other hand, Hong Kong provided Kawasaki with a poorly serviced ship with incompetent men. This resulted in Kawasaki repudiating the contract. The court argued that the term, which insisted on seaworthiness of the ship, was neither a condition nor a warranty. This is because the term is too broad to be a condition or a warranty. Therefore, it was an intermediate. In this case, the court ruled depending on the damages caused to the plaintiff (Law of Contract Part 4 473). Conclusion Therefore, in the law of contract it is of extreme importance for parties of the contract to have knowledge of the different terms. This is because they can be devastated in case of a breach. For instance, the remedies for conditions, warranties and intermediate are totally different from one another. Additionally, it is crucial for the parties to fulfill their promises because it can lead to a lot of complications. In future, parties to the contract should be aware of the terms and their meaning incase of a breach. Additionally, they should avoid complication by fulfilling their promises in the future. Collins, Hugh. The Law of Contract. London, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Law of Contract Part 4. Construction of the Contract. Lloyd’s. Lloyd’s maritime and commercial law quarterly, Volumes 1979-1980. Charlottesville, VA: Lloyd’s, 2000. Print. Stone, Richard. The Modern Law of Contract: Seventh Edition. New York, NY: Taylor Franscis, 2009. Print.

Verbs to Use in Your Research Paper

Verbs to Use in Your Research Paper When you conduct a research project, one part of your job is to assert your own original thesis with an effective argument. There are a few ways to enhance your research paper so it sounds more impressive. One method to sound convincing as an authority is to elevate your vocabulary by using great verbs. Remember, verbs are action words. The verbs you select for your writing should represent a specific action. This means you should avoid generic verbs like the following to keep your writing interesting and sharp. Dont bore your teacher or audience to tears! Stale and boring verbs to avoid: See  Is/wasLookedDidGo/wentSaidTurned Be the Authority No matter what your grade level, you must do your best to come across as an authority on your topic.  Think about the noticeable difference in these statements: I saw more mold on one piece of bread.I observed a distinct difference between the two pieces of bread. Most importantly, one piece of bread displayed a greater density of mold. The second statement sounds more mature, because we replaced saw with observed and had with displayed. In fact, the verb observe is more accurate. When carrying out a scientific experiment, after all, you use more than mere eyesight to scrutinize your results. You may smell, hear, or feel some results, and those are all part of observing. Now consider these statements when writing a history essay: Historian Robert Dulvany says there were three main causes for the war.Historian Robert Dulvany asserted that three events prompted the war. The second phrase just sounds more authoritative and direct. The verbs make all the difference! Also, make sure to use active rather than passive structure with your verbs. Active verbs make your writing clearer and engaging. Review these statements: The war on terror was launched by the United States.The United States launched the war on terror.   The subject-verb construction is a more active and powerful statement. How to Sound Like an Authority Each discipline (like history, science  or literature) has a distinct tone with certain verbs that appear frequently. As you read over your sources, observe the tone and language.   While reviewing the first draft of your research paper, conduct an inventory of your verbs. Are they tired and weak or strong and effective? This list of verbs may provide suggestions to make your research paper sound more authoritative. affirm ascertain assert cite claim clarify communicate concur contribute convey debate defend define detail determine develop differ discover discuss dispute dissect document elaborate emphasize employ engage enhance establish estimate evaluate examine explore express find focus highlight hold hypothesize identify illuminate illustrate imply incorporate infer inquire invest investigate involve judge justify limn observe ponder predict proclaim proffer promote provide question realize recap reconcile refer reflect regard relate relay remark report resolve respond reveal review sanction seek show simplify speculate submit support surmise survey tangle test theorize total transpose underestimate underline underscore understand undertake undervalue usurp validate value verify vex wander