Talk:Contract

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 180 days are automatically archived to Talk:Contract/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Rights of Third Parties

This whole area of the law of contract has been totally omitted. In English law, third parties to a contract didn't have the right to sue either of the original parties. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v Selfridge Co. [1915] AC 847. An analysis of Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 on this area of law needs to be included. Willstansfield 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of contracts

I thought another major element is "certainty of terms". Anyone? --68.127.89.164 23:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds right. I remember from when I was studying for the California bar exam (which was last week) that an offer is supposed to have "definite and certain" terms and the acceptance must unequivocally manifest an intent to accept the offer.

Is that the case everywhere else? --Coolcaesar 23:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think contract with a minor is voidable not void. Anyone?

That sounds about right. If I recall correctly, the minor can choose to affirm the contract upon reaching majority or disaffirm it and render it void. So it's voidable (meaning it contains the potential to become void), but not void at inception. --Coolcaesar 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An expert should add something to this section about the fact that both parties have to have the right to promise what they agree on for the contract to be valid, e.g. the situation of someone pretending to be a landlord and collecting rent. --Espoo 11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puff or puffing or puffery?

The article says the term of art for sales talk is "puff," but here in the U.S. I was taught in Contracts that it was called "puffing." Also, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., does not have a definition for "puff," but it does have a definition for "puffing," which includes the following note: "also known as puffery." I suspect that this is yet another American English v. Commonwealth English difference. Can anyone let us know exactly where the term "puff" is used instead of "puffing"? --Coolcaesar 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In England & Wales we talk about a "mere puff", although I cannot provide a source for that off the top of my head. It implies you're right that this is a cross-Atlantic problem, though. AndyJones 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mere puff" was mentioned in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball ([1893] 1 QB 256) case, as per Lindley LJ at 261. Sir Jimmy 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estopple

I noticed that there are no reference to estopple at all in the article. Is that because its is seen as two different parts of law? (ie. Common law and equity), or has someone simply forgotten? Sir Jimmy 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Estoppel article. But yes, its exclusion is more due to the fact that it hasn't been written rather than an explicit intention to leave it out. enochlau (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork

About forking this article:

Such a major change should not be done without prior discussion. I have reverted it. In particular, a lot of other pages need to be changed (e.g. the pages linked from the infobox), so this change shouldn't be taken lightly.
Unless we actually have content on contracts in the civil law, it is premature to fork it to common law/civil law articles.
Never move an article by copying and pasting. Use the move button and then recreate the original article if you really want to do this.

enochlau (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. From what I've read, civil law doesn't have a law of contracts per se, but rather treats it as part of the law of obligations. Therefore, I think any discussion of civil law contracts should be in a Wikipedia article on the law of obligations which should be linked to appropriately in a See also section in the footer of the Contract article.--Coolcaesar 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor?

I am trying to remove direct links to the contractor disambiguation page. As you'll see, it has a definition there, which is used by a few pages as a link, and seems sensible from those pages (see for example mentor). The definition does not really belong on the disambiguation page, could it be teased in here somewhere, so it all looks a bit more sensible? I'll not do anything for a while, as I don't want to over-lengthen or mess about with this article. A separate page just for a definition seems wrong, and a Wiktionary link in mentor would spoil the article. Help! LeeG 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the definition provided on contractor ("A contractor is a legal term...") is not the legal term as it suggests. My legal dictionary states that a contractor is "the builder of a construction project". The usage suggested seems to be the more general, everyday usage. enochlau (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is interesting. I had started to form the opinion that I would move that definition from the disambiguation page to the independent_contractor article as it seemed to fit better there, and it's easy to link back to contract. If it is not a legal definition I'll delete the bit that makes it purport to be so. Off to check out the Black's Legal Dictionary... LeeG 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]