Law question...help please?

Question

I have my business law exam tommorow, we have been given one question in advance, but Im a bit confused about it.

It is that two people have made an agreement where one of them (a singer) performs two comback concerts.
The first concert takes place, but the backing group provided (who in the agreement were stated as 'skilled') were not extremely good according to the singer.
The singer then stated that he would not perform his second concert if he did not get the proffessional backing group, the company did not want to spend extra money on this so canceled the contract saying the singer was in breach.

What Im confused about is, is the singer in breach of contract just by saying he wont perform, or does he actually not have to perform the concert to be in breach of it?

I thought he would not be in breach of contract which meant that the company cannot cancel the contract under rescission?

Thanks for any help here!

the agreement made between the two was an oral agreement.

what I first thought was that the contract stated they would be 'skilled' it didnt state what level of skilled they would be, The singer whats the professional group but instead got the amature group.

If by saying he will not perform the second concert unless he gets the professional group is a breach, is this sufficient enough for the company to cancel the contract?

Answer 1

You do realize this is cheating don't you?

Answer 2

I'm not sure what you have studied in your business law course because it is always less than a law school contracts course.

There is a subset of cases that have to do with additional terms of a contract, when they are appropriate and what not.

It seems this case deals with two issues: the quality of the singers provided by the production company, and the additional terms of the singer.

If the singers provided were not in breach of the contract, then the threat of not performing is a breach. To describe this, you have to look at the type of goods or service and whether they are easily replicated. If they are not, then the additional terms are unconscionable (like fishermen demanding extra pay while the voyage is underway). Demanding additional terms outside of the contract when no option contract exists is a breach.

These cases would be found in the chapter that has to do with policing the bargain.

If the singer is just asking for the terms of the contract to be enforced and is claiming that the back up singers are not the ones agreed upon, then the company is in breach. Contracts require each party to act in good faith. I'm not sure what case you used to illustrate this point, but it is the same as a developer asked to complete a project if a "satisfactory" lease could be obtained. Satifaction clauses do not render a contract illusory or raise problems of mutuality of performance. There are two standards for this: the reasonable man standard, and the objective standard. The objective standard cannot be used here because there is no objective standard for the quality of the back up singers according to the comeback star. The reasonable man standard must be used which is an interpretation by the courts of how the comeback singer acted. They would look to see if the singer acted as a reasonable man and determine if it was reasonable to reject full performance. With no objective standard, it becomes a matter of "taste, fancy, or judgment". In this case, the rejecting party is subject to a requirement that he act in good faith.

You must determine if the backup singer acted in goof faith. I think this hinges on whether continued performance would be damaging to his comeback career. He is required to act in good faith, but if in doing so would cause irreperable harm, then he would not.

This sounds very similar to Mattei v. Hopper however. It seems that the singer is in breach for failing to act in good faith. A contract exists whether any documents were signed or not because we already have partial performance.

A court will most likely not award specific performance, but award reliance and restitution damages e.g. lost profits, advertising costs, salaries, equipment rental. The object being to make the production company whole as if the singer had performed.

-------------------
iinspection and implied warranty do not apply because the singers are not "goods" under the UCC

I have never heard of anything called an anticapatory breach. If a breach of contract is threatened, both parties have dealt at arm's length, and this is made to bring about action by the other party, this is a breach in and of itself. It's called duress.

The production company is not in breach here, and does not breach the contract by canceling the performance.

You should state which country you are from. The laws of the US, UK, and Singapore are different and use different terminology.

Answer 3

One of the issues you have to address is anticipatory breach. Another party can terminate the contract if the other party states he will not perform. Here, there is an interesting issue because it is a conditional statement. Discuss whether a conditional statement can be considered a repudiation of the contract. The company can rescind the contract before without waiting for the breach - otherwise there are mitigation issues. I think you also need to address the nature of contracts for professionals/unique services and how that changes the analysis. Good luck.

Answer 4

I suggest you look to the Restatement of Contracts (Second). Is there a chance that there is am implied warranty on the part of the company? If so, he is not in breach. Breach of a contract can indeed be made by an oral statement such as, "I won't perform". You have failed to recognize that there are underlying issues that must be resolved in order to determine whether or not the singer is in breach. Some things to consider when approaching the Restatement are the status of the parties: What is their bargaining power respective to eachother? Are they both Merchants?
I wish you the best on your exam.

Answer 5

The back up singers did not meet the specific standards expected, it is assumed that these two had previous dealings and therefrom we can conclude that the standard expected was high otherwise the singer could have asked to test the skills when she was doing sound check.If she did not do so basing on previous dealings then the supplier of these skilled back up singers breached the contract as the "goods" supplied where not fit for the purpose, and where not of satisfactory standard, the test being used is adumbrated above.contrary to S.14 (a) and (b) of the Sale of Goods Act,

rem there is no right or wrong answer in law, do your best to convince the tutor/or judge!!!

Answer 6

Are you in Singapore? if you are i can just call you... haha joking...

in contract law, there are a few recognized methods of communication :

i) oral
ii) written
iii) electronic (e-mail)
iv) post

this has to be clearly understood.


therefore, when the singer says that he will not perform, by merely saying it is sufficient to say that the singer is in breach of contract.


on the point that he asked for an amendment to the contract before his next performance :

elements of a contract :

i)offer
ii)acceptance
iii)intention to create legal realtions
iv)consideration


i'll only touch on the first two elements.

example of an offer : "i want you to perform at my concert. i will pay you $2,000; all you need to do is sign on the dotted line, and the contract is formed."

this is an offer made by the offeror to the offeree

and example of an "acceptance"

"i agree to perform at your concert,

SIGNATURE"

the agreement is key to ANY contract.

as the singer has already signed the contract, the contract is in effect, and all parties to the contract are bound by law.


if any party wishes to ammend ANY term of the contract, then it is said to be a "counter- offer."

if the singer mentioned that he wanted a skilled, professional band to perform with him on the first performance, then it will be a counter offer.

counter offers are not recognized AFTER the acceptance/closing of the contract.


therefore, the singer is liable under breach of contract. period.


cancelling the contract:

parties can "rescind" the contract, meaning return the situation to the point b4 the contract.




if you would like i can highlight the many types of breach of contract :

i) anticipatory
ii) circumstancial breach ......


haha...

give me some points for this great answer man....

Answer 7

I say the singer is only in breach of the contract if he does not perform on the day and time the contract states.
As for as I am concern there is a big difference between saying you are not going to do something and actually not doing it. I think the company broke the contract by not waiting until the desiginated time of the performace to see if the singer performed or not.

Answer 8

I think the performer would have to abide by the contract and then sue based on breach, if the company was not willing to negotiate. Isn't there a theory of mitigating damages? Sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" rule. If one party is in breach, you can't breach also, or else they can sue for breach.

Answer 9

wouldn't it be breach of contract on the singers part due to the fact that he did sign the contract without first checking if the band was actually "skilled" to his requirements?