At Westonci.ca, we connect you with experts who provide detailed answers to your most pressing questions. Start exploring now! Explore our Q&A platform to find reliable answers from a wide range of experts in different fields. Our platform provides a seamless experience for finding reliable answers from a network of experienced professionals.

CASE 2: In 1967 the plaintiffs, Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co, manufactured tube tanks. The defendants, AV Dawson, a haulage company, agreed to carry the plaintiff’s equipment by lorry. With the knowledge of the plaintiff’s transport manager, the defendants loaded their vehicle in excess of the weight permitted by the Road Traffic Act 1960, s.64 (2). The vehicle toppled over during the journey, and the plaintiffs sued in negligence for £2,225 in damage caused to the equipment by the defendant’s driving. At first instance the trial judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded damages. The defendants appealed.


a) Analyze in details the type of contract that took place between the two parties? (5 marks)
b) Evaluate whether any recovery of damage can take place if a party enters into a lawful contract but the contract is carried out unlawfully. (5 marks)


Sagot :

a. This contact is known as a void contract. A void contract can be described as a contract that is not enforceable. Such a contract can also be said to be illegitimate.

This contract in this question is void because the equipment that they are to carry by lorry is overweight. This is illegal because it is against the stated traffic act.

The parties entered into a contract that is legal but the contract was carried out in an illegal way. This is what makes it Void.

b. Any recovery can not be made if the contract was lawful but carried out unlawfully. This is a contact breach. The rules of the traffic act that they disobeyed has revoked any hope for a recovery.

Read more https://brainly.com/question/14953327?referrer=searchResults