Provisions for Breach of Contracts: Critical analysis of U.S. Non-governmental Organizations.



Table of Contents

Introduction1

Discussion1

Conclusion6

References7

Provisions for Breach of Contracts: Critical analysis of U.S. Non-governmental Organizations.

Introduction

This paper basically revolves around the breach of contract with critical analysis on non-governmental organizations. The discrimination between the government and non-government organizations is because of the fact that, government organizations may have immunity from the common law of tort in some cases due to saving them form unnecessary disruptions. The topic of breach contract and their remedies is very large, however, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the intricacy and complex relationship of how the different legislation combine to present a case of breach of contract. This paper includes the discussion of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Bankruptcy Codes, security interest, role of agency relationships in breach, types of businesses and their role in paying up the liability and common law of torts.

Discussion

A contract is basically an agreement between parties legally competent, to do or not to do something for a consideration (Legal). Contract is a promise, legally enforceable, and therefore any breach or non-performance resulting in a loss identifiable by law can be claimed in the courts. The remedy for breach of contract may differ for government and non-government organization. It is because of the fat that, many government organizations have immunity for such cases. This point will be elaborated further later on.

A party can claim for damages or compensation in the result of breach of contract. However, there are certain duties which are necessary to performed in the presence or absence of any specific contracts. Tort law governs these types of cases. The combination of legislative enactments and common-law principles has derived law of torts (Shapo, Marshall, 2003). These laws are not dependent on the agreement between the parties but rather, they work on standards set earlier by the law.

A tort is simply a civil wrong; they make up a significant number of cases in courts (Diamond , Levine and Madden, 2000). In addition these cases get much more attention in media as well. Tort is a breach of legal duty resulting in compensable, loss or injury to a person, rights or property. Three elements must be established in action of tort. First, it must be established in court that, the defendant was in a duty to act for the plaintiff. Second, the defendant has breached the duty by not fulfilling the actions. Third, then it must be established that, the breach has directly caused loss or injury to plaintiff.

There are defenses which can be proved in the courts to save defendant from punishment. Most of the cases of torturous acts results from negligence, however, if the plaintiff exercised sufficient care and defendant did the actions properly, still the incident was unavoidable then the tort law cannot punish the defended. Any loss resulting from non-exercising of sufficient care by the plaintiff cannot be put on the defendant. If both the parties are responsible for the loss, then the percentage contribution is determined ...