Contract law applied to motorcycle industry

[Tyrian]

i am writing this so that the biker community can be of a better position to defend themselves as consumers.

 

First, let me touch on what is a contract.

 

A contract is a legal document that is legally binding on the offeror and the offeree.

 

A contract can be form in either 3 ways.

 

1: Offer and acceptance

2. Consideration

3: Intention to create legal relation

 

1: Offer and acceptance

 

This is essentially what most of us are getting ourselves into.

 

How can an offer be made?

1. By legal document (sign on the contract)

2. By word (buy fishball noodle)

3. By positive conduct

 

What is acceptance?

- Mean you accept the offer lo.

- The unqualified and unconditional assent to all the terms and benefits stated in the contract

 

2: Consideration

 

In consideration, we look at if it is a valid consideration. For consideration to take place, there must be a promise.

 

A: I'll promose to repair your bike for free

B: ok.

A: "repairs bike"

A: Please pay $1,000

B: but you promise me to repair for free leh

 

In the scenario above, there is a promise, but there is no consideration. Therefore B will not be able to sue A for breach of his promise.

 

So what is consideration.

-Something given in exchange for a promise.

 

A consideration must have value (usually $1). However, it need not be adequate.

 

A: I'll promise to repair your bike for free

B: "gives $1 to A"

A: Bill is $1,000

 

B now has a case not to pay A as he had breached his promise

 

There is this thing called the promissory estoppal. (i shall skip this. lecturer didn't teach much)

 

3: Intention to enter into a legal relationship

- Well this doesn't really apply here but the definations are as follows

 

A: Domestic/social agreement

the law says that any agreement made in the context of a domestic or social agreement does not have any contractual obligations unless otherwise proven.

 

This means that you cannot sue your fren if he promise to treat you supper

 

B: Commercial/business agreement

The law says that any agreement made in the context of a commercial agreement will have any contractual obligations unless otherwise proven

 

 

After all these bullsh|t, how can it be applied to the Motorcycle industry?

 

Scenario 1: Purchase new bike

 

1. If the contract says your Yammie will be delivered in Black, but arrived as Blue, you can sue for breach of contract and claim damages. (most likely cannot void contract)

 

2. If the contract says your Hondie will be delivered on Christmas 2008 and was never delivered, you can sue for breach of contract. (probably can void contract and claim damages)

 

Scenario 2: Repair bike

 

Usually for contract that involves personalised service, the service provider will have to exercise duty of care and skill as defined under the reasonable man test. This test is essentially what a normal service provider will do.

 

1. You change your tire and the mechanic installed the other way round (meaning the rotation of the wheel is the opposite), you had an accident as a result of it, you can claim damages.

 

2. You change engine oil but the mechanic did not top up the required amount of oil and causes your bike to have a seizure (= piston jam), you can sue him and claim damages

 

Tort Law: Negligence

 

Vicarious Liability: Taking liability for someone else's negligence

 

Meaning if the mechanic screw up your bike, you can sue the bikeshop.

 

As long as you can prove negligence by the mechanic, you can sue the bike shop and claim for damages.

 

 

 

Every mechanic has to exercise his duty of care and skill when performing his duty. Therefore, it is our right that if the bike was not repaired correctly, we can sue the bikeshop and claim for damages

 

For contract law, there are 4 types of remedies available

 

1: Damages (normal profit + special profit)

2: Quantum merit (money earned)

3: Specific performance (enforce a positive obligation on the contract)

4: Injunction (enforce a negative obligation on the contract)

 

 

Vitiating Factors

 

4 Factors that affects the validity of a contract

1: Incapacity (act insane and you need not pay a cent)

2: Duress (decision made under the influence of fear or without exercising own independent judgement)

3: Misrepresentation (too big to talk about)

4: Illegality (buy stolen yoshimura)

 

These are very brief facts on contract law. There are actually a lot to talk about. But i'm going to stop here

 

Disclaimer: I am not a law-student nor a lawyer. Meaning, i am not law-qualified. I merely took law as a module during my poly days and am going through law again as a requirement under my ACCA qualification. Please consult your nearest lawyer for friendly advice. I will not be held liable for any loss or damages as a result of any usage of the above information that i have provided.

 

So bikers let us protect ourselves from baddie bikeshops..

[brada]

ty for the civil law lecture.....

[honda_lover]

wow. its time to dig out my contract law lecture notes and revise... hahas. thanks for sharing!

[fishlipps]

Yes Thanks very much for your reminders. WE MUST PROTECT OURSELVES FROM SO MANY HEARTLESS UNSCRUPULOUS POWERFUL PPL. NO ONE ELSE WILL PROTECT SMALL MAN LIKE US

[Aalex82]

there is some mistakes on how the contract is being formed.

there must be offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relation. all must valid not juz one of them..

[craz_03]

so means if i buy from the bikeshop a 2nd hand bike..

mech promise to do swee swee..

but end up clutch plate is worn out? i can get him to change?

[Aalex82]

so means if i buy from the bikeshop a 2nd hand bike..

mech promise to do swee swee..

but end up clutch plate is worn out? i can get him to change?

 

u can get him to change if he agree to get everything done up when purchase the bike. however the term is expressed verbally, so enforce the contract will be hard unless is stated black and white in the agreement..

[Tyrian]

there is some mistakes on how the contract is being formed.

there must be offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relation. all must valid not juz one of them..

 

regarding your question, my lecturer who taught me said that in court, judges only look for 1 of the following, not all 3. However, most law textbook tells you that all 3 must be present in order for a contract to be form

 

Theoretically, it would be correct to say that all three must be present.

 

Tom buys a bike for $1000 from Harry Cycle and Harry Cycle accepted

 

From this simple sentence, all three are already present.

 

1: Offer and Acceptance: Tom, offeror, buys bike from Harry cycle (offeree)

 

2: Consideration: Harry promise to deliver bike. Consideration = $1000

 

3: Intention: Tom does not know Harry personally = business/commercial agreement

 

At the end of the day, all three will be present.

 

Even during law exams, the examiner does not require students to list all the 3 points in deciding if there is a valid contract. The question will clearly state whether if it is a offer & acceptance question, consideration question or an intention question.

 

so applying to the real world, my lecturer said that the judge will look for either one does makes sense. he was a past lawyer who was teaching at Singapore Poly as a full time lecturer. I don't think he would want to ruin his reputation though.

[Aalex82]

regarding your question, my lecturer who taught me said that in court, judges only look for 1 of the following, not all 3. However, most law textbook tells you that all 3 must be present in order for a contract to be form

 

Theoretically, it would be correct to say that all three must be present.

 

Tom buys a bike for $1000 from Harry Cycle and Harry Cycle accepted

 

From this simple sentence, all three are already present.

 

1: Offer and Acceptance: Tom, offeror, buys bike from Harry cycle (offeree)

 

2: Consideration: Harry promise to deliver bike. Consideration = $1000

 

3: Intention: Tom does not know Harry personally = business/commercial agreement

 

At the end of the day, all three will be present.

 

Even during law exams, the examiner does not require students to list all the 3 points in deciding if there is a valid contract. The question will clearly state whether if it is a offer & acceptance question, consideration question or an intention question.

 

so applying to the real world, my lecturer said that the judge will look for either one does makes sense. he was a past lawyer who was teaching at Singapore Poly as a full time lecturer. I don't think he would want to ruin his reputation though.

 

during law exam, the time duration is short and the tester will want to noe whether the student understand the case fall under which element(contract/tort).

 

for example, if husband offer to give wife $1000 to quit for her job to take care of the children. wife accepted it. but husband dun honour the agreement and cos is a domestic agreement, is not consider as a contract. in the 1st place, if there isn't offer or acceptance, there will not need to find out whether there is a binding contract.

these elements still work together.. but the court will focus on the deciding factor..

wat i interpret from wat u post is like any one element is gd enough which may mislead any person who does not noe contract law at all..

[fishlipps]

A simple way is; WRITE EVERY PROMISE DOWN ON THE CONTRACT FORM, e.g. new battery, new light, new brakepad, EO, spakplug, tune Carb, EVERYTHING. Dont leave anything to chance, we must protect ourself. At the very most, DONT BUY if not satisfied. WE dont lose, in fact we SAVE MONEY if simply dont buy the Bike

[contrarian]

regarding your question, my lecturer who taught me said that in court, judges only look for 1 of the following, not all 3. However, most law textbook tells you that all 3 must be present in order for a contract to be form

 

Theoretically, it would be correct to say that all three must be present.

 

Tom buys a bike for $1000 from Harry Cycle and Harry Cycle accepted

 

From this simple sentence, all three are already present.

 

1: Offer and Acceptance: Tom, offeror, buys bike from Harry cycle (offeree)

 

2: Consideration: Harry promise to deliver bike. Consideration = $1000

 

3: Intention: Tom does not know Harry personally = business/commercial agreement

 

At the end of the day, all three will be present.

 

Even during law exams, the examiner does not require students to list all the 3 points in deciding if there is a valid contract. The question will clearly state whether if it is a offer & acceptance question, consideration question or an intention question.

 

so applying to the real world, my lecturer said that the judge will look for either one does makes sense. he was a past lawyer who was teaching at Singapore Poly as a full time lecturer. I don't think he would want to ruin his reputation though.

 

You have made a serious mistake on law and unfortunately broadcast this mistake to the other readers.

 

Aalex82 is right, a valid contract under Singapore law needs all the elements to exist.

[BlackBandit]

You have made a serious mistake on law and unfortunately broadcast this mistake to the other readers.

 

Aalex82 is right, a valid contract under Singapore law needs all the elements to exist.

 

Yup. That was what I was taught too. All elements need to be present in order to enter a valid contract.

[Wildboar]

tyrian, r u a lawyer?