I'm no expert, but from what I understand is a FRAUDULENT (key word) contract is not enforceable because it is fraudulent. I would think the innocent party could bring a suit for damages though...
It may be possible to enforce the contract. If the party can show that they saw the individual as an agent of the other party, the courts will often enforce it.
That is the definition of an unconscionable contract. Under the UCC § 2-302, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce all but the unconscionable part, or limit the application to avoid the unconscionable result.
if a 3rd party is benefitting, if the contract says that they can, if it was intended that someone with legal authority enforce the contract not have the authority, a trust
The innocent party usually has the option to decide whether they would like to continue with the contract or discharge it and go for damages
Yes if you are the party whos innocent and no if the is no damage coused
Unjust enrichment is when a party wrongfully profits from a breach in contract. The contractual remedy is restitution during which the innocent party will receive the damages of the contract along with the unjust enrichments of the breaching party.
A performance of the term of a contract that is deficient in some minor way. Court decides whether contract is discharged. Innocent party does not have to pay for what was not done.
It's the party for whom the insurance was purchased to save his interest if the contracting party was proved to be liable against him
If you don't enforce them, what is the point in having the contract. You may as well just give the other party whatever they would have gottn and have no further dealings.
"Terms and Conditions" is a common phrase associated with contracts. They provide specifics on what things need to be done by both parties. It may indicate what date the bill is to be paid, the process for changing clauses in the contract, or even what happens at the end of the contract. The T&C's on a contract can be one or two paragraphs, or even run to hundreds of pages.
This is really a technicality. It isn't going to be thrown out if the court believes that the right person signed the contract. And if the other party would be harmed because they are relying on the contract, the court will enforce it.
Privity of consideration: In England consideration must move from the promisee. If it is furnished by any other person ,the promisee becomes a stranger to the consideration and,therefore,cannot enforce the promise promisee seeking to enforce an agreement must show that he himself furnished the consideration for the promise give by the other party.The principle is known as the doctrine of privity of consideration.This principle is not applicable in INDIA.Privity of contract : A contract cannot confer any right on one who is not a party to the contract even though the very object of the contract may have been to benefit him.Only a person who is party to a contract can sue on it.This principle is applicable in INDIA.