Comments for Contract Law http://www.contractlawtoday.com The latest on contract world affecting you and me Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:47:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 Comment on Contract Law Consideration by Harry Lieberman http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-consideration/comment-page-1/#comment-3497 Harry Lieberman Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:30:55 +0000 http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-consideration/#comment-3497 I own a co that rented a water cooler for a term of 48 months.I entered into this contract under the assumption that the company would take liability for the quality of the water in regard to safety.That is if any employee were to get sick because of contamination than the company would take responsibility.There is a clause in the contractthat states ""If the water co. does not provide semi annual service or quality as promised(no chlorine,bacteria etc..)the customer may cancel with 30 days notice where the company does not remedy the complaint". I assumed that the water was guaranteed. The contract began around 1997 ...on or around 2007 of June at a new location, some employees were complaining about the taste and odour of the water. It became worrisome to me that employees might get sick from the water. I wanted to investigate the guide lines that protect employees from drinking water in a work place. I called the Ministry of health and asked them what would happpen if an employee drank water from a rental fountain and got sick? The answer was that I would be liable to their illness,and that I should call the water company to ascertain their quality and guarantee of water safety and an insurance that if the water fountain were the source of an illness that the company would take responsibility. I called the water comapny and explained the situation. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would not take responsibility for any illness from the water cooler, and that they had no insurance to cover the liability. I than instructed them that I would not be going forward with their contract for obvious safety reasons. They told me thhey would pick up the water cooler and they did. The amount per month is 48 dollars for a period of 48 months. I received a bill for 3400 dollars prox or for the entire 48 months inspite of having no water cooler in use. The interest rate is 42% per annum. I own a co that rented a water cooler for a term of 48 months.I entered into this contract under the assumption that the company would take liability for the quality of the water in regard to safety.That is if any employee were to get sick because of contamination than the company would take responsibility.There is a clause in the contractthat states “”If the water co. does not provide semi annual service or quality as promised(no chlorine,bacteria etc..)the customer may cancel with 30 days notice where the company does not remedy the complaint”.

I assumed that the water was guaranteed. The contract began around 1997 …on or around 2007 of June at a new location, some employees were complaining about the taste and odour of the water. It became worrisome to me that employees might get sick from the water. I wanted to investigate the guide lines that protect employees from drinking water in a work place. I called the Ministry of health and asked them what would happpen if an employee drank water from a rental fountain and got sick?
The answer was that I would be liable to their illness,and that I should call the water company to ascertain their quality and guarantee of water safety and an insurance that if the water fountain were the source of an illness that the company would take responsibility.

I called the water comapny and explained the situation. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would not take responsibility for any illness from the water cooler, and that they had no insurance to cover the liability.

I than instructed them that I would not be going forward with their contract for obvious safety reasons.
They told me thhey would pick up the water cooler and they did.
The amount per month is 48 dollars for a period of 48 months.
I received a bill for 3400 dollars prox or for the entire 48 months inspite of having no water cooler in use.

The interest rate is 42% per annum.

]]> Comment on Contract Law Consideration by raymond yagoe http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-consideration/comment-page-1/#comment-223 raymond yagoe Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:41:36 +0000 http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-consideration/#comment-223 i will like to get infomations about contract law i will like to get infomations about contract law

]]> Comment on Contract Law Requirments by Smita http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-requirments/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Smita Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:56:03 +0000 http://www.contractlawtoday.com/contract-law-requirments/#comment-13 the principle f promissory estoppel is a shield but nota sword the principle f promissory estoppel is a shield but nota sword

]]> Comment on Construction Contract Law by odhav http://www.contractlawtoday.com/construction-contract-law/comment-page-1/#comment-11 odhav Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:44:57 +0000 http://www.contractlawtoday.com/construction-contract-law/#comment-11 Sir, In today's law peoeple refuge even written agreement onthe ground that the reason of agrement was something else than the facts written in agreement. In my case my lessee stated in court that lease agreement was made with the intention to show the document in some department and claime that land was identified by him and purchased by him.The land was in green zone and he was not farmer so this arrangement was done.In fact he has nothing to do with land or ha has not invested anything in the land, even though he put two witnesses who confirmed what he says is write. So whar to do of this type of people? Sir,
In today’s law peoeple refuge even written agreement onthe ground that the reason of agrement was something else than the facts written in agreement.
In my case my lessee stated in court that lease agreement was made with the intention to show the document in some department and claime that land was identified by him and purchased by him.The land was in green zone and he was not farmer so this arrangement was done.In fact he has nothing to do with land or ha has not invested anything in the land, even though he put two witnesses who confirmed what he says is write. So whar to do of this type of people?

]]>