Issues 1 misunderstanding
Yes, both the common laws of contracts apply in this particular case. This is because two individuals enter into deal. One would drill a borehole for another (Mikesell, 2016). Hence, as long, there is exchange for service, the common law and regulations pertaining contractual law come into effect immediately. The issue here is Fred wanted Oliver to dig a borehole in his farm but Oliver’s drill hit a rock broke down. This somehow breached the features of common law, as there is some form of exchange between two people, then common law can apply. In addition, Fred hires Haney to drill his borehole but unfortunately. Haney manages to drill the borehole and reach the water table but he is late due some unavoidable circumstances. Fred decided to sue both men for damages.
In terms of the validity of the contract, the first contract occurs between Fred and Oliver but due a hitch, he fails to complete the borehole on time (Mikesell, 2016). Then, unsatisfied with Oliver’s results hires another contractor to drill the borehole. Mr. Haney drills the borehole but commences the work late.
Rule
Both parties care calls attention to a lawful procedural manner of handling things. For instance, it goes hand in hand with other fiduciary duties such as good faith and fair handling of a situation hence each person has meet the set requirements (Mikesell, 2016). Therefore, when Fred denied Oliver a chance to drill the borehole, he violated the contract. He even went further and sued him to recover the money he paid him for services not rendered.
Analysis
It is an obvious and observable fact that drilling a borehole depends on many uncontrollable factors and anything can happen. For instance, Oliver never planned for the breaking down of the drilling machine, instead, his wife destructed him, and it happened. Nevertheless, this did not deter him from drilling another borehole until October. On the other hand, Fred does take into consideration the facts surrounding drilling a borehole, he sues both of the men. Based on the case, one can tell that somehow, Haney has a role to play in Fred’s predicaments because he commenced drilling of the borehole late. Fred could only avert his situation if his borehole would be operational by August.
Conclusion
The rule of law relevant and applicable to the case is the national labor act that oversees and protects the rights to hold an opinion and conduct business in a lawful manner. Thus, the law is an instrument that facilitates and permitting the actions of Oliver. More so, it buffers the employer against unlawful exercises by an employer and gives them a right to seek the help of a union. Thus, the law gives clear directions into the case and other similar situations.
Issue2 application of the rule of law
Applying laws and other regulations regarding breaching of agreement of regulations. Almost all duties revolve around the application of the rule of law. If the both parties do not acquaint themselves enough with the law and regulations, they will not carry out their duties in the right way. Hence, the adherence to law helps them to meet do service to their responsibility while making the contract work and accomplish its main objectives. They have to understand the roles they play. Having a clear understanding of their roles puts the contract at a better place to comprehend and carry out duties assigned to them. More so, understanding leads to better execution of personal obligations (Flood, & Goodenough, 2015). The formulation of procedures gives guidance and direction in terms of the manner of handling drilling obligations. Policies assess and orient contract members on their task routine and keep everything in check. In fact, policies tend to use the past to correct the present by certain standardized measures. The board use polices to develop contractual goals and agendas within a stipulated period of time.
Rule
Collusive pricing can take place in many forms within an agreement between two people when one takes another person and offers him or her the same services. One of the most common ways of collusive pricing is price fixing during after an agreement goes south. This is brought about when several people within an agreement integrate to form another agreement from the original agreement (Jia, & Bijman, 2014). For example, the oligopoly decides on the overall price of the food products. Another form of collusive pricing occurs when people come together and set maximum prices for services that they buy. Firms collude to get rid of competition or reduce their number significantly.
Conclusion
There is always a peaceful way of settling issues before taking them straight to court. Sometimes suing may never solve issues but leave the situation pending trial (Jia, & Bijman, 2014). Hence, the best way to go about a disagreement relies on understanding both sides of the agreement and adjusting accordingly so that each emerging scenario may fit in for everyone. Hence, at the end of the day, everyone remains happy and satisfied with the outcomes of the situation.
Works cited
Mikesell, R. F. (2016). Petroleum company operations and agreements in the developing countries. Routledge.
Flood, M. D., & Goodenough, O. R. (2015). Contract as automaton: the computational representation of financial agreements. Office of Financial Research Working Paper, (15-04).
Jia, X., & Bijman, J. (2014). Contract farming: Synthetic themes for linking farmers to demanding markets. In Contract farming for inclusive market access (pp. 21-38). FAO.
