In the second case of scenario, Mac

In the second case of scenario, Macmahon Mining Service and Cobar Management were parties to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar’s copper mine in Edinburg and the contract was signed for two years. But, less than two years into the contract, Cobar informs that they will terminate because Macmahon breach of condition.
As task 1.3, it discussed term of contract. From that, express term in the contract between Macmahon with Cobar is that has to design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar’s copper mine in Edinburg in two years (scenario, p.4). It is shown those terms of contract were clearly and specific includes of content and time. Therefore, there was a valid contract. However, less than two years into the contract term, ‘Cobar issued a notice for termination to Macmahon, relying on contractual provision entitling the party to terminate forthwith for breach, if the breach was a breach of condition’. The reasons in order to Cobar terminate the contract is unclearly. Cobar did not present specific what contractual provision is a breach of condition. Because of the breach of Macmahon also can be a breach of warranty. Breach of condition and breach of warranty are different elements. As the case of Poussard v Spiers 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.111), the breach is a breach of condition, because the singer was not to sing on the opening night, which night was very important for the producer, so that this action causes to damages. But, in the case of Bettini v Gye 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.112), this case is different with the case of Poussard v Spiers 1876. Even though they also were not to sing, Bettini did not sing before the opening. Thus, she just breach of warranty. Depending on cause the breach is breach of condition or breach of warranty. Therefore, Cobar cannot terminate the contract because of contractual provision that is not clearly. This evidence is not enough to bound Macmahon is breach of condition, lead to terminate the contract immediately. Thus, Macmahon has the right to claim compensation. Because Cobar’s action about terminate forthwith, cause damages for Macmahon ‘loss of opportunity to earn profit’. The time of contract is two years, but less than two years, Cobar notified termination of contract. Thus, ‘Macmahon claims that had the contract continued to completion it would have made substantial profits. It is therefore suing for £67,000,000 loss of profit’. This is reasonable for the damage of Macmahon.
However, Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon for loss of opportunity to earn profit because of base on clause 18.5 of the contract which provides: ‘Despite anything else in this contract, neither party will be liable to the other for any Consequential Loss.’ This clause is not mention to the term of termination. Moreover, Cobar had never discussed or negotiation with Macmahon about the terms of termination and legal liability of two parties when termination of contract in the Consequential Loss. Therefore, Cobar uses the clause 18.5 is void. According to onerous term in exclusion clause, the case of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd 1988, the term was not incorporated into the contract, because this term was not highlighted before. Cobar was not highlighted for that Consequential Loss allowed applies in the circumstances that any party when unilateral termination of contracts. Moreover, Cobar had never negotiation with Macmahon that if termination of contract by any party, it can exempt the liability about compensation for damage. Thus, this term is void. In addition, the Consequential Loss mentioned that ‘One of the exceptions this overall limit on liability was wilful misconduct.’ Cobar issued a notice of terminate forthwith for breach and did not explain detail about breach. Cobar’s action can understand is wilful misconduct, cause the damages for Macmahon ‘loss of opportunity to earn profit – £67,000,000’. This is exception and no belongs to Consequential Loss. Hence, Macmahon must claim for this damage. According to the Unfair Term in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, there is a concept of unfair that: any term which cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ right and obligation under the contract to the detriment of the consumer (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.129). Consequential Loss will be term unfair with Macmahon. Because of the termination of contract of Cobar cause many damages for Macmahon. It may lead to bankrupt, so that this term is imbalance. Apply the Unfair Term in Consumer contracts regulations 1999, this exclusion clause is invalid. Thus, the liability of Cobar must compensation for damage with Macmahon. Moreover, Cobar terminated the contract before the time limit of contract from two years down less than two years. This is also breach of contract. According to (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.125) that in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Act applies to clause that attempt to limit liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the loss of opportunity does not belong to Consequential Loss, so that Cobar must compensation for Macmahon is £67,000,000.

Results (English) 1:

In the second case of scenario, Macmahon Mining Service and Cobar Management were parties to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine in Edinburg and the contract was signed for two years. But, less than two years into the contract, Cobar informs that they will terminate because Macmahon breach of condition.As task 1.3, it discussed term of contract. From that, the express term in the contract between Macmahon with Cobar is that has to design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine in Edinburg in two years (scenario, p. 4). It is shown those terms of contract were clearly and specific includes of content and time. Therefore, there was a valid contract. However, less than two years into the contract term, ' the Cobar issued a notice for termination to Macmahon, relying on contractual provision entitling the party to terminate forthwith for breach, if the breach was a breach of condition. The reasons in order to Cobar terminate the contract is unclearly. Cobar did not present specific what contractual provision is a breach of condition. Because of the breach of Macmahon also can be a breach of warranty. Breach of condition and breach of warranty are different elements. As the case of Poussard v Spiers 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p. 111), the breach is a breach of condition, because the singer was not to sing on the opening night, which night was very important for the producer, so that this action causes to damages. But, in the case of Bettini v Gye 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p. 112), this case is different with the case of Poussard v Spiers 1876. Even though they also were not to sing, Bettini did not sing before the opening. Thus, she just breach of warranty. Depending on the cause of the breach is breach of condition or breach of warranty. Therefore, Cobar cannot terminate the contract because of contractual provision that is not clearly. This is not enough evidence to bound Macmahon is breach of condition, lead to terminate the contract immediately. Thus, Macmahon has the right to claim compensation. Because Cobar's action about terminate forthwith, cause damages for Macmahon ' loss of opportunity to earn profit. ' At the time of contract is two years, but less than two years, Cobar notified termination of contract. Thus, ' Macmahon claims that had the contract continued to completion it would have made substantial profits. It is therefore suing for £67,000 million loss of profit '. This is reasonable for the damage of Macmahon.However, Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon for loss of opportunity to earn profit because of base on clause 18.5 of the contract which provides: ' Despite anything else in this contract, neither party will be liable to the other for any Consequential Loss. ' This clause is not to mention the term of termination. Moreover, Cobar had never discussed or negotiation with Macmahon about the terms of termination and legal liability of two parties when termination of contract in the Consequential Loss. Therefore, Cobar uses the clause 18.5 is void. According to onerous term in exclusion clause, the case of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd in 1988, the term was not incorporated into the contract, because this term was not highlighted before. Cobar was not highlighted for that Consequential Loss allowed applies in the circumstances that any party when unilateral termination of contracts. Moreover, Cobar had never negotiation with Macmahon that if termination of contract by any party, it can exempt the liability about compensation for damage. Thus, this term is void. In addition, the Consequential Loss mentioned that ' One of the exceptions this overall limit on liability was wilful misconduct. ' Cobar issued a notice of terminate forthwith for breach and did not explain detail about breach. Cobar's action can understand is wilful misconduct, cause the damages for Macmahon ' loss of opportunity to earn profit-£67,000 million '. This is exception and no belongs to Consequential Loss. Hence, Macmahon must claim for this damage. According to the Unfair Term in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, there is a concept of unfair that: any term which cause a significant imbalance in the parties ' right and obligation under the contract to the detriment of the consumer (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p. 129). Consequential Loss will be term unfair with Macmahon. Because of the termination of contract of Cobar cause many damages for Macmahon. It may lead to bankrupt, so that this term is imbalance. Apply the Unfair Term in Consumer contracts regulations 1999, this exclusion clause is invalid. Thus, the liability of Cobar must compensation for damage with Macmahon. Moreover, Cobar terminated the contract before the time limit of the contract from two years down less than two years. This is also breach of contract. According to (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p. 125) that in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Act applies to clause that attempt to limit liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the loss of opportunity does not belong to Consequential Loss, so that Cobar must compensation for Macmahon is £67,000 million.

Results (English) 2:

In the second case of scenario, MacMahon Mining Service and Cobar Management là parties to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine and the contract was printed Edinburg signed for two years. But, two years less coal Into the contract, Cobar will terminate vì informs mà chúng Breach of condition MacMahon.
As task 1.3, it Discussed term of contract. From that, the express term in the contract with Cobar đã giữa MacMahon has to design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine print print Edinburg two years (scenario, Ward 4). It is Shown những terms of contract and specific Clearly là includes of content and time. Therefore, there was a valid contract. Tuy nhiên, two years less coal Into the contract term, 'Issued a notice for termination Cobar to MacMahon, Relying on contractual party to terminate the PROVISION entitling for Breach forthwith, if the Breach was a Breach of condition'. The lý print order to terminate the contract is unclearly Cobar. Cobar did not present specific contractual what is a Breach of condition PROVISION. Because of the Breach of MacMahon am also a Breach of warranty can be. Breach of condition and Breach of warranty are different elements. As the case of Poussard v Spiers 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.111), the Breach is a Breach of condition, was not vì singer to sing on the opening night, was very important, for mà night the producer, compared to Damages Causes That this action. But, in the case of Bettini v Gye 1876 (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.112), this case is the case of Poussard khác with 1876. Even though Spiers v chúng cũng were not to sing, Bettini did not sing trước opening. Thì, She just Breach of warranty. Phụ thuộc cause, the Breach is Breach of condition or Breach of warranty. Therefore, terminate the contract Cobar không vì contractual PROVISION nằm Clearly not. This Is Not Enough Evidence to Breach of condition is bound MacMahon, lead to terminate the contract ngay. Thì, MacMahon has the right to claim compensation. Because Cobar's action forthwith terminate about, cause, Damages for MacMahon 'loss of opportunity to earn profit'. The Time of contract is two years, but two years less coal, termination of contract Notified Cobar. Thì, 'có có MacMahon claims the contract continued to completion it would have made ​​substantial Profits. It is therefore suing for loss of profit £ 67,000,000 '. This is reasonable for the damage of MacMahon.
Tuy nhiên, dismissed the claim by MacMahon Cobar for loss of opportunity to earn profit vì base on clause 18.5 of the contract mà provides: 'Despite anything else in this contract, Neither party liable to sẽ the other for any consequential Loss. ' This clause is not mention to the term of termination. Moreover, Cobar hda or negotiation with MacMahon never Discussed about the terms of termination and legal liability of two parties in the contract khi termination of the consequential Loss. Therefore, the clause 18.5 dùng Cobar is void. Theo print exclusion clause onerous term, the case of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd 1988, the term was not Incorporated Into the contract, this term was not highlighted vì all before. Cobar was not highlighted for that consequential Loss allowed in the Circumstances Applies khi có any unilateral termination of the Contracts party. Moreover, Cobar hda never negotiation with termination of contract if MacMahon mà by any party, it can exempt the liability for damage compensation about. Thì, this term is void. In addition, the consequential Loss Mentioned that 'One of the exceptions was this overall limit on liability Wilful misconduct.' Issued a notice of Cobar terminate forthwith for Breach and Breach did not explain about detail. Cobar's action is Wilful misconduct can hiểu, cause, the Damages for MacMahon 'loss of opportunity to earn profit - £ 67,000,000'. This is no exception and belongs to the consequential Loss. Hence, MacMahon phải claim for this damage. Theo Unfair Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Term print, there is a concept of unfair mà: any cause, a term the significant mà imbalance in the parties' right and Obligation under the contract to the detriment of the consumer (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business 2007, p.129). Consequential Loss Will Be with MacMahon unfair term. Because of the termination of contract of Cobar cause, many Damages for MacMahon. It unfortunately lead to bankrupt, vì this term is imbalance. Apply the Unfair Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Term print, this exclusion clause is invalid. Thì, the liability of compensation for damage phải Cobar with MacMahon. Moreover, Cobar terminated the contract is before the time limit of two years contract from two years down less coal. Breach of contract This is cũng. Theo (Aspect of Contract and Negligence for Business, 2007, p.125) Unfair Contract Terms mà in the 1977 Act, the Act applies to limit liability clause mà thử for Breach of contract. Therefore, the loss of opportunity does not belong to the consequential Loss, vì Cobar phải compensation for MacMahon is £ 67,000,000.