Certainty an Essential Element

Question: Discuss about the Certainty an Essential Element. Answer: Introduction: The issue in this case is whether there is an enforceable contract between Seth and John. Many courts have always manifested a timorous reluctance to dismiss court cases in contract law on the basis that they lack certainty because the parties demonstrate an intention to enter into the contract. However, the imperial rule is that an uncertain contract is not binding on the parties. An uncertain contract contains that terms that are vague, illusory and incomplete. A contract will not be enforceable if the terms of the contract are illusory. This has ben illustrated in Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace where the claimant has signed an employment contract with the defendant which stated that he could chose to take part in a sharing scheme of the company as a senior staff. The claimant sued the defendant for breach of contract. It was apparent to the court that such a scheme did not exist when they were making the agreement. Kirby P affirmed that a promised that is made in the absen ce a specific monetary compensation are not vague promises but illusory. McHugh JA held that consideration was illusory and it was solely hinged on the defendants discretion. It thus follows that the fact that Seth did not specify the amount of money to be paid for the cup of coffee, the agreement was illusory and unenforceable. What is more is that the price was solely conditional on the discretion of Seth. In addition, uncertain contracts show evidence of incomplete terms. It is trite law that fundamental terms in a contract are binding on the parties. Price has been considered as an indispensable factor of a contract although there is legislation in victoria that provides that a party should pay a reasonable price in case it is not given in an agreement. In the case of ANZ v Frost Holdings Pty Ltd the claimant has made a proposal to the defendants but the defendant made a tentative acceptance which they stated was subject to change. However, the defendant later declined to proceed with the agreement and the claimant sued alleging breach of contract. The supreme court of Victoria pronounced that the parties did not agree on the fundamental terms such as price quality and size and therefore the contract was unenforceable. Conversely, in Godecke v Kirwan the clamant made a written agreement that for the sale of land which contained a term that stated that the claimant will have to sign a further agreement incase he is interested in purchasing the land. The defendant who was the vendor declined to proceed with the transaction but the court of appeal held that all the fundamental terms of the agreement had been met and the contract was binding. Therefore, the statement pay what you choose agreement between Seth and john is incomplete because it does not stet the price of the items that a client would ordinarily select. It can be coded there was no enforceable contract between John and Seth because of lack its illusory, uncertain and incomplete nature. Bibliography Goods Act 1958 (Vic) Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 ANZ v Frost Holdings Pty Ltd [1989] VR 695 Godecke v Kirwan (1973) 129 CLR 629 Thomas Heintzman, Is Certainty An Essential Element Of A Building Contract? 2012 HEINTZMANADR https://www.heintzmanadr.com/arbitration-agreement/solution-for-contract-uncertainty/is-certainty-an-essential-element-of-a-building-contract/