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

Part A-Contract law Part B- (letter) - Case Study caseAs a result, they did not expect the consumer to take them seriously. A misrepresentation, on the other hand, refers to a traitorously statement of fact that a party makes to another party to square up them into entering a contract, tear down though the statement is not part of the contract. In effect, this makes the contract voidable and the innocent party could cease the contract, as well as claim damages (James, 2014 p22). Where a person reservation the statement knew the actual 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 modify 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 magnate 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, difference them no reasonable alternative than to assent to the contract. On the other hand, undue influence refers to taking receipts 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. different 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