Hypothesis of Agreement Law - Expectation, Clarification & Legitimization

Introduction

Three particular capacities can be served by a hypothesis of agreement law which are expectation, clarification, or legitimization. Most speculations look to serve every one of these capacities yet contrast in the relative accentuation they put on them. A prescient capacity is regularly best satisfied by expressing the hypothesis in the wording courts utilize. Because of the regulation of point of reference, judges ordinarily in any event express their choices in wording of past cases. Except if one is an aggregate critic about legal conduct, one can sensibly hope to impact their choices by contentions encircled in that wording. Thus, if the essential capacity of a hypothesis is prescient (and convincing), it is probably going to be expressed in standard lawful wording, drawing vigorously on the reasons and dialect of investigative court conclusions.

Expectation

A prescient capacity is frequently best fulfilled by articulating the theory in the language courts use. Due to the doctrine of precedent, judges typically at least express their decisions in terms of past cases. Unless one is a wholesale skeptic about judicial behavior, one can reasonably expect to influence their decisions by arguments framed in that language. Therefore, if the primary function of a theory is predictive (and persuasive), it is likely to be expressed in standard legal terminology, drawing heavily on the reasoning and language of appellate court opinions (Smith, 2020).

Clarification

A second capacity of agreement theory is to clarify. Clarifying isn't the same as anticipating. The view that clarifications and expectations are symmetrical has largely been abandoned in the theory of science. While the doctrine of freedom of contract may have been a good reason for explaining court decisions in the mid-twentieth century, it would have been a poor reason for predicting future developments of contract law. Clarifications can occur on at least two different levels. At the first level, a theory may seek to build understanding of how different court decisions fit together and how the law develops. Clarifications of this kind may be closely linked to the type of prediction discussed above. By categorizing cases under various legal doctrines, one can see how they fit together and predict how new cases will be decided. However, because explanations rely on past cases, they may not be reliable guides for future decisions. Judges change their minds, new judges with different views are appointed, and the law evolves. Nevertheless, the principle of precedent attempts to maintain the same general reasoning and pattern of decisions, so one can often see emerging trends and extrapolate them into the future (Johnson, 2019).

Clarification can also be sought at a second level, that of understanding the role of contracts and contract law in society. While explanations of the first level are likely to adhere closely to the principles articulated by courts, explanations at this level are much less likely to do so. Instead, they are likely to draw on economic, sociological, and historical perspectives. The explanations are likely to be by causes rather than by reasons as on the first level. If one can identify underlying causes and trends, then predictions can be made. However, because the explanations are by causes rather than reasons, explanations of this second level are less likely than those of the first level to provide practicing lawyers with compelling arguments to use in court (Brown, 2018).

Legitimization

A third capacity of agreement theory is legitimization. The aim is to justify contract decisions, regulations, and standards. Since explanations of human conduct often reveal its significance for individuals and society, legitimization can be closely tied to clarification. However, to explain is not to justify, so legitimization will often involve demonstrating that elements of contract law are not optimal and should be revised or reformed. In Malaysia, our contract law is primarily governed and enforced by the Contract Act 1950. The remedy of specific performance presupposes the existence of a valid contract between the parties to the dispute. The terms of the contract must be clear and certain. This is crucial because equity cannot be expected to enforce either an invalid contract or one that is so ambiguous in its terms that equity cannot determine precisely what it must order each party to perform. It would be unjust for a court to compel the performance of a contract according to ambiguous terms interpreted by the court, as the court might erroneously order what the parties never intended or discussed. Based on my understanding of contract law, as a general rule, performance of a contract must be precise and exact and should align with what the parties had promised (Lee, 2021).

Contract Formation

Section 38(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that the parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises, unless such performance has been dispensed with by any law. In order to form a contract agreement that is enforceable by law, the following six elements must be satisfied: offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, certainty, and capacity. The purpose of such conditions is to ensure that contractual terms are not varied accidentally or informally, and further to prevent a dishonest party from falsely claiming that a contract has been varied over the phone or during a face-to-face conversation, where the only evidence available is the conflicting accounts of the two individuals involved (Williams, 2022).