• Specific performance – is a judicial order to the promisor that he undertake the performance to which he obligated himself in a contract. The injured party asks the court to order the other party to perform the promise made. Specific performance is an alternative remedy to damages and may be issued at the discretion of the court.
• Rescission – Is an order that seeks to restore the parties to their original status before the contract was made. In an action for rescission, the injured party asks the court to declare the contract void and return the contacting parties as near as possible to the positions they had prior to entering the contract.
• Injunction – It is a court order directing a person to stop doing that which she should not do. In an action for injunction, the injured party asks the court to restrain or enjoin the party in breach from certain activities.

Remedy is the relief a Court may grant upon finding that a wrong has been committed. Remedies for breach of contract fall into two main classifications: “legal or common law” remedies (i.e., the right to be awarded monetary damages) and “equitable” remedies (i.e., the right to some relief from the Court other than damages).

• Performance (Delivery and discharge of obligations),
• Agreement (Through Variation or termination),
• Breach of Condition (that which goes to the root of the contract is broken),
• Frustration (Impossible to perform)

The offer of a reward is a unilateral contract. In a unilateral contract, the acceptance consists of the actual performance of the required act and not making promise. Where the act for which the reward is promised is done in ignorance of the promise of the reward, the reward cannot be claimed because there can be no acceptance without the knowledge of the offer.
Kwesi Minsu is not entitled to benefit from the reward because he had no knowledge of the reward.

• An offer.
• An acceptance.
• Competent parties who have the legal capacity to contract.
• Lawful subject matter.
• Mutuality of obligation.
• Consideration.
• Intention to create legal relations.                                                                                                                           (Any 4 points)

Julie will not succeed (Balfour v Balfour). The parties in domestic or social arrangements are generally presumed not to intend legal consequences.”. “For a contract to exist the parties to an agreement must intend to create legal relations Usually, the presence of consideration will provide evidence of this – if the promisor has specified something as the price for the promisee this – in most cases – carries with it an intention that the parties be bound. Intention remains, however, an independent requirement and must be separately demonstrated and there are cases in which consideration has been present but no contract found to exist because this pre-condition has not been fulfilled. In determining if there is contractual intent and objective approach is taken.

Anita will succeed on the rebuttable presumption that they intend to claim legal relationship although it is the same social/domestic agreement

In the course of negotiations that should lead to the formation of a contract, the parties to the contract may make a number of statements. These statements may or may not form part of the contract. If a statement becomes a core part of a contract, it is a term of the contract. A term of a contract then creates a legal obligation for which it entitles the innocent party to sue for damages for breach of contract.

Rescission of a contract is an equitable remedy that allows the parties to a voidable contract to treat it as if it had never been made and to recover from one another any money or property that had changed hands before the defect came to light. It is a standard remedy in case of breach of a condition. The remedy requires that the person has acted equitably himself. It will not be available if the person claiming it delays in acting on his right and a third part’s rights have arisen, the person claiming (third party) has affirmed the contract and property being reclaimed has passed to a third party.

Every individual is liable for his own tort. However employers are vicariously responsible/liable for the tort of their employees while the employees are acting in the course of employment. The employer ceases to be liable only where the employee is on the frolic of his own.
Kofi Gee was employed to drive the specialty truck and was doing that when the accident occurred. Therefore, the Company becomes vicariously liable for the tort of Kofi Gee in the tort of negligence, despite the instructions and despite providing him with the needed training.
The law imposes a duty on everyone and to everyone to take care, in particular professionals. Kofi Gee breached that duty by failing to apply the skill and expertise in driving the specialty truck. Kofi Gee will also be liable in the tort of negligence.

• It was a common law principle that “a promise to keep an offer open for a specified period could be withdrawn before the expiration of the time”.
• This was especially true, if no consideration was provided by the promisee, for the promise.
• The courts sought to make changes to this principle especially in situations where through some forbearance on the part of the promise, sought to accept the promise.
• But the statement is no longer true in Ghana. Section 8 (I) of the Contract Act, Act (25) 1960 states that “a promise to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified time shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of the absence of any consideration therefor”.
• In situations where the promisee may have relied on the offer to keep the offer open and has made efforts to accept the offer, it would not be fair to withdraw the offer or promise midstream only for the reason that no consideration has been offered.

For there to be a binding contract there must be :

• an offer ,acceptance, consideration and intention to create a legal relation
• From the scenario, the advert in the newspaper amounted to an offer-
• The purchase of the balm and its applications amounted to acceptance.
• The response to the adverts itself is the consideration that has been provided-
• The deposit of the money at the bank constitute an intention to create legal relation.-
• The company is therefore liable to Madam Akua Mansah-

• In every contract the parties must have capacity in the sense that they must be adults and of sound mind.-
• In the scenario above Madam Akua Mansah’s daughter is said to be 14 years of age.
• By law she is a minor and can therefore not sued or be sued –
• She therefore lacks capacity to sue the company.-
• There is no privity of contract

A condition creates the fundamental obligations of the contracting parties. Breach of a fundamental obligation-ie, a condition-by one party entitles the other party to repudiate. Or a condition is vital term of a contract, going to the root of the contract, a breach of which entitles the injured party either to treat the contract as repudiated and terminate performance of the contract and claim damages for the termination or to affirm the contract and claim damages.
Fundamental obligation/root of the contract attracts- 1 ½ Marks
Repudiate/terminate performance and claim damages – 1 ½ Marks

A warranty is a minor term. A breach of warranty entitles the other party to damages only. A warranty is not a vital term in a contract, but one which is subsidiary, a breach of which gives no right to treat the contract as terminated but only an action for damages.
Minor term /not a vital term/subsidiary –    (1 ½ Marks)
No right treat contract as terminated but only an action for damages-    (1 ½ Marks)

• It must be incorporated into the contract and not added after the contract is complete.
• The customer must have adequate knowledge of the clause.
• In the present scenario the contract was concluded before the exclusion clause was brought to Kofi’s notice.

• A promisor who has promised to keep his offer open for a specified period is not at liberty to withdraw the offer before the expiration of that period on the ground that the promisee has not provided any consideration for the offer.
• A creditor who promises, without receiving consideration for the whole or part of a debt or to waive the performance of some other contractual or legal obligation can be held to his promise. The promise of waiver shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of the absence of any consideration for it.
• If one is legally bound to perform a legal duty, the performance, or promise to perform that act may be sufficient consideration.
• It is possible for consideration to be supplied by someone other than promisee. The beneficiary need not be the promisee. (S.10).

Capacity: a person is said to have capacity when he is of sound mind and has attained the age of majority (i.e. 18 years in Ghana). In order to form a wholly valid contract, parties must be over 18 years of age and be of sound mind. Under the section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, capacity to buy and sell is regulated by this general law concerning capacity to contract and to transfer and acquire property.

Acceptance: In order to constitute a valid contract, there must be an offer and an unqualified acceptance. Acceptance may be oral, written or implied from conduct. Under Section 52 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when-

• He intimates to the seller that he accepts them; or
• He does not, within a reasonable time after delivery of the goods, inform the seller that he rejects them; or
• He wrongfully refuses or neglects to place the goods at the disposal of the seller after notifying the seller that he rejects them.

Misrepresentation: A misrepresentation is (a) a false statement (b) of material fact (c) made by a party to a contract or his agent (d) inducing the other to enter into the contract.

Goods: means “ movable property of every description, and includes growing crops or plants and other things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale by or under the contract of sale”- Section 81 of Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 37).

Quantum Meruit: Where there is a breach of an essential condition in a contact, the injured may either (a) seek to enforce the contract and sue for damages; or (b) treat the contract as discharged in which case he cannot sue for damages for its breach. However, where he adopts course (b) above, and treats the contract as discharged, he is entitled to bring a quasi-contractual action for compensation for work done or services rendered, etc. This is called a Quantum Meruit action (literally “how much is it worth?)

• Necessity for consideration: every simple contract must be supported by consideration, otherwise, it is void.
• Legality of consideration, the consideration must be legal. i.e not some illegal act, like paying someone to commit a crime.
• Consideration must move from the promise, i.e a person seeking to enforce a simple contract in court must prove that he himself has given consideration in return for the promise he is seeking to enforce.
• Consideration must be something beyond the promisee’s existing obligations to the promisor. The promisee must have undertaking to do something for the person whose promise he is seeking to enforce, beyond what he was already bound to do.
• Consideration must be real: it must not be vague, indefinite or illusory.
• Consideration must not be past: a promise made in return for some past service is unenforceable.
• Payment of a smaller sum will not discharge a liability to pay a larger (the rule in the Foakes vrs Beer [1884]): if A owes B $100 and B agrees to accept $ 50 in complete discharge of the debt, there is nothing to stop B later from changing his mind and suing for the remaining $50)
                                                                                                                                                                                 ( Any 5 points)