According to the second case from s

According to the second case from scenario, Macmahon and Cobar had a contract to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar’s copper mine in Edinburg. However, less than two years into the contract term, Cobar spend a notice to terminate this contract with reason that Macmahon breach of condition in the contract. Macmahon alleged that the termination of Cobar was invalid and sued Cobar for damage. One of the heads of damage claimed is “loss of opportunity to earn profit” and Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon on clause 18.5 of the contract “Despite anything else in this contract, neither party will be liable to the other for any Consequential Loss”. Basing on circumstances in case above, it can be clearly seen that the law of contract terms was a very important role because it is a binding condition of parties or become a condition to claim for damage. Therefore, to analyze the law of contract terms in this case, it ought to base on four elements: express terms, implied terms, condition & warranty and exclusion clauses.
To begin with the express terms, Macmahon Mining Services and Cobar Management were parties to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar’s copper mine in Edinburg, which was basic contents of contract between Macmahon and Cobar because it showed the responsibility of Cobar when cooperated with Macmahon. Next, it is the condition and warranty elements. In this case, Macmahon had a clause that Macmahon will provide transportation to support conveying equipment in working process of Cobar. In one times, employees of Cobar transported equipment by themself and did not have the supporting of Macmahon, so that Cobar thought that Macmahon did not want to continue providing transportation and terminate the contract. However, the providing transportation of Macmahon just want to support the working process of Cobar faster and better, and the purpose of contract was design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar’s copper mine in Edinburg. It can be clearly seen that the supporting of Macmahon did not affect directly into the purpose of contract same with the case Bettini v Gye 1876 (p.112), so that this problem just breach of warranty. Therefore, the termination contract of Cobar did not accept because this problem just breached of warranty and Macmahon can require claiming for damage. Next, basing on the case, it had the existed of consequential loss, which means that a party will claim damage present and will not claim for damage in future. Following the case, Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon for loss of opportunity to earn profit and relied 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”, which will help Cobar and Macmahon to release the responsibility for any consequential loss. After that, one of the heads of damage claimed is “loss of opportunity to earn profit”. Macmahon claims that had the contract continued to completion it would have made substantial profits. It is therefore suing for $67,000,000 of lost profit, which was calculated by Macmahon for earning profit in future such as the case Ross and Caunters 1980 (p.257). Therefore, the purpose of clause 18.5 is not suitability and invalidity with business because it help parties to avoid liability, can terminate contract anytime, and do not have any element to bind parties. Basing on the S13.1 the Unfair Contract Terms ACT 1977 of statutory law, it regulated that to the extent that this Part of this Act prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevent: making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions; excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy; excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure (LEGISLATION, 1977). It has enough condition to prove that clause 18.5 of the contract is invalidity, so that Cobar ought to claim damage for Macmahon. According to scenario, the requirement for claim damage was regulated clearly that “In addition to this clause excluding consequential loss, there was an overall limit of liability clause limiting each party’s total aggregate liability to the other to be limited to an amount equivalent to the Contract Sum. One of the exceptions to this overall limit on liability was “willful misconduct””. Plus, the maximize value of contract between Macmahon and Cobar was $3,000,000; so that the claim for Macmahon will not surpass the value of contract and cannot equal $67,000,000 of lost profit of Macmahon. Therefore, Cobar can follow the case St Albans City and District Coucil v International Computer Ltd 1994 (p128) to determine a suitable cost for claimed damage of Macmahon.
In conclusion, Macmahon can know the important role of terms in the contract, which can help Macmahon to take indemnification from Cobar and can continue working the project of company.
 

Results (English) 1:

According to the second case from scenario, Macmahon and Cobar had a contract to design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine in Edinburg. However, less than two years into the contract term, Cobar spend a notice to terminate this contract with reason that Macmahon breach of condition in the contract. MacMahon alleged that the termination of Cobar was invalid and Cobar sued for damage. One of the heads of damage claimed is "loss of opportunity to earn profit" and Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon on clause 18.5 of the contract "Despite anything else in this contract, neither party will be liable to the other for any Consequential Loss". Basing on circumstances in case above, it can be clearly seen that the law of contract terms was a very important role because it is a binding condition of parties or become a condition to claim for damage. Therefore, to analyze the law of contract terms in this case, it ought to base on four elements: express terms, implied terms, condition & warranty and exclusion clauses. To begin with the express terms, Macmahon Mining Services and Cobar Management were parties to a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine in Edinburg, which was the basic contents of contract between Macmahon and Cobar because it showed the responsibility of Cobar when cooperated with Macmahon. Next, it is the condition and warranty elements. In this case, Macmahon had a clause that Macmahon will provide transportation to support conveying equipment in working process of Cobar. In one times, employees of Cobar transported equipment by themself and did not have the supporting of Macmahon, so that Cobar thought that Macmahon did not want to continue providing transportation and terminate the contract. However, the providing transportation of Macmahon just want to support the working process of Cobar faster and better, and the purpose of contract was design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine in Edinburg. It can be clearly seen that the supporting of Macmahon did not affect directly into the purpose of contract same with the case Bettini v Gye 1876 (p. 112), so that this problem just breach of warranty. Therefore, the termination contract of Cobar did not accept because this problem just breached of warranty and Macmahon can require claiming for damage. Next, basing on the case, it had existed of the consequential loss, which means that a party will claim damage present and will not claim for damage in future. Following the case, Cobar dismissed the claim by Macmahon for loss of opportunity to earn profit and relied 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", which will help Cobar and Macmahon to release the responsibility for any consequential loss. After that, one of the heads of damage claimed is "loss of opportunity to earn profit". MacMahon claims that had the contract continued to completion it would have made substantial profits. It is therefore suing for $67,000 million of lost profit, which was calculated by Macmahon for earning profit in future such as the case of Ross and Caunters 1980 (p. 257). Therefore, the purpose of clause 18.5 is not suitability and invalidity with business because it help parties to avoid liability, can terminate contract anytime, and do not have any element to bind parties. Basing on the S Unfair Contract Terms ACT 1977, the 13.1 of statutory law, it regulated that to the extent that this Part of this Act prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevent: making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions; excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy; excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure (LEGISLATION, 1977). It has enough condition to prove that clause 18.5 of the contract is invalidity, so that Cobar ought to claim damage for Macmahon. According to scenario, the requirement for claim damage was regulated clearly that "In addition to this clause excluding consequential loss, there was an overall limit of liability clause limiting each party's total aggregate liability to the other to be limited to an amount equivalent to the Contract Sum. One of the exceptions to this overall limit on liability was "willful" misconduct ". Plus, the maximize value of contract between Macmahon and Cobar was $3,000 million; so that the claim for Macmahon will not surpass the value of contract and cannot equal $67,000 million of lost profit of Macmahon. Therefore, Cobar can follow the case St Albans City and District Coucil v International Computer Ltd 1994 (p128) to determine a suitable cost for claimed damage of Macmahon. In conclusion, Macmahon can know the important role of terms in the contract, which can help Macmahon to take indemnification from Cobar and can continue working the project of company.  

Results (English) 2:

From theo second case scenario, MacMahon and Cobar had a contract to design and construct a agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine print Edinburg. Tuy nhiên, two years less coal Into the contract term, notice to terminate Cobar Spend a reason this contract with Breach of condition mà MacMahon in the contract. MacMahon alleged termination of rằng Cobar Cobar was invalid and sued for damage. One of the heads of damage tuyên bố is "loss of opportunity to earn profit" and dismissed the claim by MacMahon Cobar on clause 18.5 of the contract "Despite anything else in this contract, Neither party will be liable to the other for any consequential Loss" . Basing on Circumstances printed above case, it can be seen that the law of Clearly contract terms was a very important, it is a binding role vì condition of parties or Become a condition to claim for damage. Therefore, to analyze the law of contract terms in this case, it ought to base on four elements: express terms, Implied terms, warranty and exclusion clauses condition &.
To begin with the express terms, MacMahon Mining Services and Cobar Management là big parties a design and construct agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine print Edinburg, mà contract was basic contents of the between MacMahon and Cobar vì it showed the Responsibility of Cobar khi cooperated with MacMahon. Next, it is the condition and warranty elements. In this case, had a clause mà MacMahon MacMahon Will Provide transportation to support conveying equipment working process of Cobar print. In one times, employees of Cobar transported equipment by themself and did not have the Supporting of MacMahon, để có Cobar thought muốn continue MacMahon did not terminate the contract and Providing transportation. Tuy nhiên, the Providing transportation of MacMahon just want to support the working process of Cobar Faster and better, and the purpose of design and construct contract was agreement for the development of Cobar's copper mine print Edinburg. It can be seen that the Supporting Clearly did not hưởng trực of MacMahon Into the purpose of contract with the same case Bettini v Gye in 1876 (p.112), vì Breach of warranty just this problem. Therefore, the termination contract of Cobar did not accept this vì problem of warranty and MacMahon breached just can require Claiming for damage. Next, Basing on the case, it existed of the consequential loss hda the mà vì a party will claim damage present and will not claim for damage in Future. Following the case, dismissed the claim by MacMahon Cobar for loss of opportunity to earn profit and relied on clause 18.5 of the contract mà provides: "Despite anything else in this contract, Neither party will be liable to the other for any consequential Loss" Cobar and MacMahon sẽ help to release the Responsibility for any consequential loss. After that, one of the heads of damage tuyên bố is "loss of opportunity to earn profit." MacMahon có có claims the contract continued to completion it would have made ​​substantial Profits. It is therefore suing for $ 67,000,000 of lost profit, was calculated by MacMahon mà Earning profit for the case in Future như Ross and Caunters 1980 (p.257). Therefore, the purpose of clause 18.5 is not suitability and invalidity with business vì parties to avoid liability help it, can terminate contract anytime, and do not have any element to bind parties. Basing on the Unfair Contract Terms S13.1 the ACT in 1977 of statutory law, to the extent it regulated có có this Part of this Act prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability cũng Prevent it: making the liability or its enforcement subject to Restrictive or conditionsEND_SPAN onerous; excluding or restricting any right or respect of the liability Remedy print, or subjecting a person to any consequence of his print Prejudice vd pursuing any right or Remedy; excluding or restricting rules of Evidence or procedure (LEGISLATION, 1977). It has enough condition to Prove That clause 18.5 of the contract is invalidity, vì Cobar ought to claim damage for MacMahon. Theo scenario, the requirement for claims of damage was regulated Clearly mà "In addition to this clause excluding consequential loss, there was an overall limit of liability clause limiting each party's total aggregate liability to the other to be limited to an amount equivalent to the Contract Sum. One of the exceptions to this overall limit on liability was "willful misconduct". " Plus, maximize the value of contract giữa MacMahon and Cobar was $ 3,000,000; compared rằng MacMahon will not claim for the value of contract and SURPASS can not equal $ 67,000,000 of lost profit of MacMahon. Therefore, can follow the case Cobar St Albans City and District Coucil v International Computers Ltd 1994 (p128) to quyết a cost Suitable for tuyên bố damage of MacMahon.
In Conclusion, MacMahon important, can know the role of terms in the contract, mà can help MacMahon to take indemnification from Cobar and can continue working the project of company.