IntroductionThe declined to sell and Hyde recorded a claim.

IntroductionThe lawful issue that has emerged in this inquiry is whether a legitimate restricting contract has to be shaped amongst Alan and Bernard, Charleen and Damien relating Alan’s expectation to auction his Commercial Law reading material “Introduction to Business Law In Singapore” and the notes he has taken in an activity book throughout the module. The legitimate issues asked in the inquiry are the lawful positions Bernard, Charleen, and Damien hold against Alan and the cures and elective question resolutions that Alan can embrace. We will likewise take a gander at the different standards of law that happens in the cases.The best possible term for law in light of this contention depends on the fair regulation of promissory estoppel. This principle has been expressed that there is now a legally binding relationship framed and there are some unanticipated circumstance that makes things difficult for the gatherings to turn out with the first assertion that can influence the two gatherings to concur into the understanding then the holding up time of the unexpected occasion that they are not permitted to backpedal to their guarantee as it were they are illegal by the tenet of promissory estoppel. Alan V BernardIn this case, Alan and Bernard did not form any contract as Bernard’s offer was $150 and was declined by Alan because Damien made an offer of $200. This case is similar to Hyde. Wrench 1840 3 Bea 334; 49 ER 132. Mr Wrench the litigant, offered Mr Hyde the plaintiff an amount of £1,200 in order to purchase the farm. Mr Hyde declined the offer but Mr Wrench chose to keep in touch with the plaintiff with a new offer with a price of £1,000. He influenced it clear that it will be his last offer with for the farm. Mr Hyde then offered Mr Wrench an amount of £950. Mr Wrench declined his offered straight away. Mr Hyde at that point consented to purchase the farm for £1,000, which was offered previously. But, Mr Wrench did not want to sell it anymore. Hyde endeavored to acknowledge the underlying offer of 1000 Pounds yet Wrench declined to sell and Hyde recorded a claim. The Court maintained that there was no agreement when the counter-offer was made, the first offer is wrecked and is not available to offeree to acknowledge any longer. Q3. Charleen’s legal position and remediesIn Alan V Charleen, offer and acceptance criteria have been met and being able to bind a contract legally for consideration. Charleen is having her ‘O’ Level examinations so Charleen is considered a minor as her age is around 16-17 years old. To form a contract, both parties must be at the age of 18 and above to legally form a contract. In this case, Charleen is a minor as she did not meet the requirements. (‘Minors – Contract Law |,’ n.d.).In conclusion of Alan v Charleen, Charleen could not sue Alan although she had paid him for the course book as she is a minor. Even though both parties had offer and acceptance for the course book. Q4. Damien’s legal position and remediesFor Alan v Damien case, they are missing a requirement called consideration to form a contract. For a contract to be legally binding, a consideration must be provided by the promise in return for a promise made by the promisor. Simply put, the party making the promise must gain benefit from the promise while the party receiving the promise must suffer some loss with regards to the promise. This benefit gained by the promisor is known as the consideration of a contract. However, for the consideration to be considered valid, it must first satisfy the five rules of consideration. Firstly, the consideration provided must be real and must carry some value in them. Acts of affection or social duty do not amount to consideration. Secondly, the consideration need not be proportionate to the promise that was made by the promisor but must be sufficient and exactly what was agreed by both parties. Thirdly, consideration must move from the promise and also, according to Price V Easton 1833 4 B & Ad 433, no third parties can benefit or incur liability on a contract which he was not a party to, and that only parties of the contract can sue on the contract. Fourthly/ the consideration must be legal and cannot commit an act which is illegal. Lastly, the consideration must not past. The consideration must not be performed before the promise has been made. This consideration would prove to have no value and will not be enforceable as past consideration is no consideration (“Consideration Lecture Notes,” n.d.). In  Price V Easton 1833 4 B & Ad 433 case. An affirmation between the parties expressed that X owed the complainant £3. X consented to finish work for the litigant in return for the payment to pay the money to the complainant. The litigant concurred he will pay the complainant for X’s once the work was done. X finished the work for the litigant yet the litigant did not pay the complainant, or X, as had guaranteed. The complainant sued the litigant for the cash that X owed. The court was required to set up whether the complainant had given any consideration to the agreement between the litigant and X for the work that was completed. On the off chance that this could be set up, the complainant would have the capacity to sue the litigant for the cash that would be able to pay to the complainant because of X’s work to clear the obligation that he owed from their different agreement. It was discovered that X played out his piece of the agreement with the litigant. However, the complainant was an outsider to the agreement between them and he couldn’t sue for the amount owed by the litigant. Even though that the cash owed previously had been cleared. The court discovered this on the premise that the complainant had not given any consideration to the promise between the two parties. The complainant’s claim was expelled by the court.For Alan v Damien case, there was no mutual agreement between the two of them. Legal actions cannot be taken in place as the consideration would prove to have no value and will not be enforceable as past consideration is no consideration.Q5. The various alternative dispute resolution options availableThere are different option debate resolutions accessible to receive for circumstances like these. Mediation can be an ideal approach to comprehend debate as it is intentional and a private procedure in which the two parties look to locate a better arrangement that parties can both concede. There is likewise an outsider known as the mediator who helps the two parties in finding a pleasing arrangement. Mediation can likewise be utilized for various purposes like settlements of debate, overseeing clashes, the transaction of contracts, making of arrangement and counteracting struggle (, n.d.). However there are cons to mediation as the two parties must consent to a determination at exactly that point mediation can occur on the off chance that one or the two parties are unwilling to participate it won’t work out, the middle person might be unpracticed and there are additional potential outcomes that mediation do not spare time or cash (“Pros and Cons of Mediation |,” 2010).Another strategy is litigation and it can be accustomed to settling disputes. Litigation is the way of taking a case to a courtroom with the goal that a judgment can be made. The stars of suit incorporate that the two gatherings need to consent to the judge’s choice and further measures can be utilized to implement it on the off chance that it is required, the procedure is open and it is straightforward to general society eye, it is additionally in view of a strict institutionalized consistency with the rule that everyone must follow and in conclusion determination is last and authoritative. There are likewise opportunities to claim to a higher court (“Solicitor Prosecution continues puts a transitory remain on exercises, for instance, if there is a contention over an item, neither of the parties includes might have the capacity to offer the item until the point that the court decides the privileges of the item. In such occasions, the two parties can’t push ahead yet can utilize an opportunity to gather proof and put forth their defense. Litigation is not a joking matter that infers no determination outside the courts, this can cause clashes inside the case and individuals and organizations may feel abhor and maintain longstanding animosity feelings of spite and disdain at the way that they need to go to the court and this outcome in trouble in repairing connections. Ultimately, litigation may wind up in broad daylight examination as, despite the fact that case may not open to open, they do give people, in general, a consciousness of what is happening. This mindfulness can bring about deciding. It enables general society to investigate each gathering deliberately (“Solicitor Litigation – focal points and disservices | Solicitors Litigation,” n.d.).Finally, another technique to settling dispute can be the utilization of arbitration. It is one of the numerous sorts of option debate determination which gives parties to a decision other than litigation. Concurring ahead of time to consent to the arbitrator’s honor. At that point take an interest in a hearing when both sides present their confirmation and declaration and arbitrator’s choice is last and the courts sometimes reconsider after the choice is done (“arbitration,” n.d.) The cons of arbitration incorporates, costs as it is normally exceptionally costly and it is generally more costly than litigation, decency is sketchy as customer may not think the arbitrator is, as a rule, reasonable, it is likewise typically slower than litigation, and as the choice made is constantly last, it is close difficult to change the arbitrator’s choice. In conclusion, there is no jury include and choice made are exclusively in view of one individual (“Arbitration Pros and Cons – FindLaw,” n.d.).