# data[].attributes.body
According to the scenario given, Arnold signed a Warranty contract with Ah Seng to supply vegetables to GCC without knowing the legal term of Warranty. In the contract under Clause 12, it was agreed that vegetables supplied from Ah Seng’s farm would be sourced from Singapore and grown using organic process. But Arnold found out that some of the vegetables supplied are not from Singapore but are sourced in Johor Bahru, Malaysia and contained some pesticides. This shows that Ah Seng has breached the terms in Clause 12 which states “sourced from Singapore” and “grown using organic processes”. In legal term according to BUS201 Contract and Agency Law study guide, warranties are the least important term and the injured party has only the option to claim the damages caused and is unable to discharge or terminate the contract. If the injured party wants to terminate the contract, he may get sued for unjustified contract termination. In contrast, conditions is an important, essential or fundamental term which if a condition is breached, the injured party can affirm or terminate the contract in addition that the wrongful party needs to pay all the damages. Hence, Warranty and Conditions are very different even though that both are able to claim damages from the other party whereas Condition can choose to terminate the contract and Warranty is unable to do so. In this case, the term in the warranty contract that are agreed by both parties are “…sourced from Singapore” and “grown using organic processes”, but Ah Seng supplied vegetables sourced from Johor Bahru and the ones that was supplied by Ah Seng’s farm contains pesticides which clearly contradict the terms states in the Clause 12 Hence, this led to breach of the contract and Arnold is only able to sue Ah Seng for the breached according to the legal terms given above. In conclusion, GCC was not entitled to terminate the contract with Ah Seng on the basis of a breach of Clause 12 as this is a warranty contract which only allows Arnold to claim damages from Ah Seng. If else, Arnold may need to face consequences of being sued for unjustified contract termination.

# data[].attributes.body
For this statement - "  Firstly, Fred utilizing the mediation method would help him reduce cost compared to litigation processes. "

Herring, J. (2017). 10. Alternative dispute resolution. Law Trove. doi:10.1093/he/9780198788928.003.0010

# data[].attributes.body
A term is a promise or undertaking made by one contracting party to another. Terms are statements which form part of a contract that can be expressed or implied. These two types of terms are made to keep both parties from exploiting each other.

An express contract is a term that is directly acknowledged and stated by both parties. It consists of direct promises or agreements made by either party to one another which are legally binding. Express contracts can be verbal or written and must be understandable to both parties. The express terms should also include valuable consideration to ensure some sort of benefit is allocated to each party.

In contrast, Implied terms are the practice of setting down default rules for contracts; when terms that contracting parties expressly state have diminished. Implied terms then help to overturn terms that parties may have themselves chosen. Furthermore, unlike express terms, implied terms are applied when parties do not have any elements of an express contract between them or when a legal issue surface. In most scenarios, implied contracts are usually evoked when the plaintiff has been treated unjustly and they have not taken any action that would rescind the contract.

To further elaborate the differences between express and implied terms, there are two express contract examples that can be referenced from the case given. Firstly, Green Corridor Café (“GCC”) made an express contract with Ah Seng by agreeing that Ah Seng would supply the party with certain specified species; and amounts of vegetables with a specific duration which was a weekly basis for 12 months. The mentioned above lacked any evidence of a written form of contract hence, it is possible that it was a verbal agreement of an express contract.

Secondly, a written express form of a contract was present as seen in clause 12 of their contract where it was explicitly stated that shall be a warranty and that the vegetables supplied by Ah Seng should be sourced from within Singapore strictly and those products are to be grown using only organic methods. These examples show the express terms of the contract.

However, implied terms are recognized differently as seen in the examples mentioned below. Firstly, the implied term of the contract is that breaking any of the conditions set by GCC are to be adhered to. If not, any opposing actions against the express terms would imply that the contract would be void. Such as Ah Seng neglecting to uphold his agreement by stating that Johor Bharu is as same as being a Singapore state even though it is geographically false.

Secondly, another implied term would be that GCC would have to ability to sue Ah Seng for infringing on their contract based on possible defamation as seen in the example where Arnold (GCC) would face possible reputation damages if his clients find out that his establishment is unreliable due to the vegetables being foreign and non-organic which contradicts his company’s motto. This then would cost GCC money and business opportunities. Therefore, the implied term is that Ah Seng would need to compensate GCC if he infringes on the contract.

In conclusion, though there are differences between express and implied terms, these differences complement each other in ensuring the contract is justifiably fair to both parties.

# data[].attributes.body
Lol 👏🏻

# data[].attributes.body
For This sentence- 'These two types of terms are made to keep both parties from exploiting each other.'

What is the difference between implied and express terms? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://worksmart.org.uk/work-rights/pay-and-contracts/contract-terminology/what-difference-between-implied-and-express-terms

# data[].attributes.body
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that serve as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. It is a collective term for the different methods that parties can utilize to settle disagreements with the help of a third party. Whereas, litigation is the term used to describe proceedings initiated between two opposing parties to enforce or defend a legal right.

Using Mediation as the method of dispute resolution, allows disagreeing parties to appoint a third party to help them work through the dispute with the objective of reaching a consensus. It is non-binding to parties and maintains confidentiality as it is a private process.

In contrast, Litigation processes utilize legal remedies in both the Supreme Court and the State Courts governed by subsidiary legislation known the Rules of Court (RC) where both parties are required to comply with the requirements in the RC strictly (Tan, 2019).  Litigation process begins with the commencement followed by pleadings, discovery, trial respectively. Finally, ending with the enforcement of a judgment.

In this Scenario, Fred should undertake an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) approach with John for a resolution. Fred should use the mediation method by hiring a mediator from the Singapore Mediation Centre as the issue at hand is about late acknowledgment and breaking Fred’s reservation deposit promise of $50 that was valid until the 15th of May. John broke his promise by failing to check if the offer for the high-end gaming personal computer of $2,500 was accepted by Fred. Furthermore, John broke the promise by accepting another buyer whom was offering a higher price before the 15th of May. Thus, infringing the agreement John and Fred made.

Based on the facts, I would recommend Fred to undertake an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) approach with John for a resolution. Fred should use the method of Mediation to solve this dispute as this approach has more benefits than the litigation process.

Firstly, Fred utilizing the mediation method would help him reduce cost compared to litigation processes. This is because mediation takes up lesser time than building a case that has to move through various legal channels that may take months to resolve. Hence, mediation is more beneficial as a lesser time to achieve settlements means reducing the amount of money being wasted on hourly fees and costs. Furthermore, Fred would not have to incur more costs for compliance as mediated solutions are generally based on mutual agreements. Thus, employing an attorney to force compliance with the solution would be highly unnecessary.

Secondly, Mediation is confidential and allows Fred to have more control over the outcome of the resolution compared to court procedurals through litigations. In court, the judge often has the control and cannot legally provide settlements that emerge in mediation. Hence, mediation has a higher probability of producing a result that is mutually agreeable for Fred and John.

Lastly, the Mediation method encourages Fred to ensure and prolong a mutual business relationship with John as parties that are usually ready to work mutually towards a resolution are to compromise and compensate one another. This allows them to become more amenable to understanding each other and focus on solving the underlying issues rather than trying to exploit or shift the blame on each other.

In Conclusion I would advise Fred to take the appropriate alternative dispute resolution of mediation to undertake with John.

# data[].attributes.headline
24 Feb 2019- Final but please take a look :)

# data[].attributes.subject
24 Feb 2019- Final but please take a look :)