Irish Bussiness Law Martin versus Jason

Business law and such related legal requirements provides the frame work for the redress of such circumstances when they do occur as well as ascertaining whether the claims are justifiable apart from determining the amount of compensation if the situation warrants the compensation. There are always circumstances not foreseeable to both the contracting parties and therefore, it is not worth that the compensations are made and the laws consequently provide to cover such events. Martin, in a bid to sue Jason for the losses incurred and the eventual closure of the business will have to prove various circumstances under which the loss is related to the activities of Jason as well as establish that it was a fault in the execution of his part of the contract. As such the court will be able to rule on the sustainability of the claim and thus be able to determine the amount of compensation, if it comes to materialize. The actions of each party that could have perpetuated the failure are also a significant contribution. Breach of contracts can be very simple or very complex but will always either result into minor losses or extensive losses in which case one person may be forced to terminate the contract and sue for damage (Keenan, 63). In the case of Martin, the damage can be considered to be great although the supplies have resumed and Martin have not also attempt to terminate the contract and so may not be able to institute a case against Jason. Martin has only suggested loss of revenue for which he did not and has not informed Jason which might cause Jason to assume a state of comfort for Martin. The kind of contractual agreement between Martin and Jason presents a contract which is executionary and not executed and so each party should be able to terminate it at one point or the other, if according to the terms of agreement the other person has breached the contract. The problem that has presented itself in this case is one that Jason could have been able to foresee and prepare measures to mitigate it when it does occur (Keenan, 311). In this case the contract is not impossible to perform due to unforeseen circumstances but due to the negligence on the part of Jason which actually entitles Martin for compensation on the loss and goodwill the actions of Jason have caused him. Motor vehicles are items whose breakdown rate is frequent and so should always be considered as prone to such events. In this case, Jason, before committing to supply Martin with the fast foods should have considered and taken measures to cushion his customers against the same although Jason may argue that a situation of simultaneous breakdown of the two trucks was actually unforeseen. But since Martin seems not to have rescinded the contract when Jason failed to supply the goods during the first week of the problem, he may therefore be assumed to have consented to the proceedings and therefore need not sue as Jason will argue that he was not aware of the extent of the lack of supplies since His customer, Martin, had not communicated the same. The other complexity in this case arises due to the fact that Jason has resumed supplies to mean that he has not withdrawn from performing the contract but could have stopped to allow Martin clear his stocks which at