Article Writing Homework Help

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Discuss the influence/role the law of equity has in the law of contract. It needs to be at least 3000 words. If either of the parties fails to discharge the obligations of the agreement, the common law requires that party to compensate the other party for failing to fulfil the promises. Usually, the compensation is in the form of money and is meant to ensure the offended party is placed in the same position they would have been if both parties completely discharged their obligations of the agreement as agreed upon (Paul 2007, p.23). Equity laws were developed to eliminate the unfairness in contract by establishing the nature of promises and construing the validity of the promises (Marshall 2012, p.38). Equity laws further ensures that each party executes their obligations in the agreement in order to ensure there is no party who stand to gain from his or misdemeanor against the other party. The aim is to ensure that each party gets what the contract initially offered and that each party performs according to the agreement (Williams 2006, p.341). The parties to a contract intend to form a legal union so that in case of breach of those conditions by either of the parties, the offender is held responsible for compensating the other party (Williams 2006, p.341). The other purpose is to set obligations each party owes the other in accordance to the promises they make to each other. 1. Promissory estoppels Under the common law, the promises in a contract are only enforceable if there was sufficient consideration provided by each party to the other during the time of making the contract. Promissory estoppels are a principle in the law of contract which enables the court to enforce promises made by the parties to the contract in the absence of consideration with an aim to avoid unfairness in the execution of the contract (Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis 2012). 1. The effect of promissory estoppel on formalities Promissory estoppels enable the court to avoid causing injustices to one party who fulfilled his or contractual obligations through the promises made by the other party even if they lacked consideration. For example, in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v, High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, in which High Trees House Ltd rented premises from central London Property Trust Ltd in London. However, due to the consequences of 2nd world war in 1939, the demand for houses was low there were no occupants to fill the capacity (Beale, Tallon, Vogenauer, Rutgers & Fauvarque-Cosson 2010, p. 3). The landlord offered to reduce the rental feel by half, but they did not specify the duration in which the new fees would apply. Five years later, the demand for houses went up and by mid 1945 al houses were occupied. In 1946, the landlord sued the tenant (High Tress House Ltd) to recover the initial rental value for the houses. The court issued a verdict that in case the land lord was to make a similar claim in 1940, there could be no success since the demand was low. Therefore, even though the common law would require the tenant to pay the old rate the moment all houses were occupied, this was unfair to the tenants since the promises never stated the period in which the old rental fee would resume (Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis 2012).