Clarification

[kukutia]

Why married couple are disqualified by law to enter into contract

 

[soskeneth]

No its not true,, general rule has it's axception

 

[soskeneth]

Kwenye sheria mkataba ni makubaliano yanafanyika baina ya pande mbili au zaid yakiwa na lengo la kuwajibika kisheria section ya 2(1)(h)

Ili definition au maan hyo iweze kuwa na nguvu kisheria lazima element's zifuatazo ziwe kweny hayo makubaliaon yenu ambazo zinapatikan kifungu cha 10 cha sheria ya mkataba Cap 345 R:E 2002

1.agreement
2.capacity to acontract
3.consideration
4.lawful object
5.intention to create legal relation
6.free consent


Mume na mke mara yingi makubaliano yao yanakuwa hayana lengo LA ku create legal relation yaan kuwa ya kisheria zaid kwa sabab tunasema ni love affection.. Makubaliano hayo yemegawanyika sehemu kuu 2,, nazo ni

1.DOMESTIC AGREEMENT
2.COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT
Samahan zitawez eleezea kiundan zaid nitaelez kwa kifup

Zingatia

Kama mke na Mume wameingia makubalion flan mmoja wapo akataka yawe binding kisheria na wakawekean kimaandish

Mfano MUME amemwahid mke wake mwakan mwez Kama huu nitakujengea nyumba na wakaweka makubaliano hayo yatambulike kisheria yaan yawe binding by law in case of one of the parties to a contract if he/she will breach the contract will be liable before the court of law. Sasa Mfano mwaka ule na mwez ule umefika Mume hakutekelz ahad yake na mke akaamua kwenda mahakaman kumshitak kwamba mumewe hajatimiz ahad yake basi mume either atalazimshwa na sheria atekelez ahad yake au amlipe fidia mkewe kwa sabab yeye ndiye aliyevunja mkatab

Soma kesi ya Balfour vs Balfour 1919 2KB 571 is leading English contract case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create legally enforceable agreement when the agreement so domestic in nature.

Pia soma Merritt vs Merritt 1970
Hzo kesi mbili zitakupa mwongozo kwa wakat gan mke au Mume atawajibika kisheria kweny mkatab wake.

Asante nawasilisha

 

[kukutia]

Kwenye sheria mkataba ni makubaliano yanafanyika baina ya pande mbili au zaid yakiwa na lengo la kuwajibika kisheria section ya 2(1)(h)

Ili definition au maan hyo iweze kuwa na nguvu kisheria lazima element's zifuatazo ziwe kweny hayo makubaliaon yenu ambazo zinapatikan kifungu cha 10 cha sheria ya mkataba Cap 345 R:E 2002

1.agreement
2.capacity to acontract
3.consideration
4.lawful object
5.intention to create legal relation
6.free consent


Mume na mke mara yingi makubaliano yao yanakuwa hayana lengo LA ku create legal relation yaan kuwa ya kisheria zaid kwa sabab tunasema ni love affection.. Makubaliano hayo yemegawanyika sehemu kuu 2,, nazo ni

1.DOMESTIC AGREEMENT
2.COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT
Samahan zitawez eleezea kiundan zaid nitaelez kwa kifup

Zingatia

Kama mke na Mume wameingia makubalion flan mmoja wapo akataka yawe binding kisheria na wakawekean kimaandish

Mfano MUME amemwahid mke wake mwakan mwez Kama huu nitakujengea nyumba na wakaweka makubaliano hayo yatambulike kisheria yaan yawe binding by law in case of one of the parties to a contract if he/she will breach the contract will be liable before the court of law. Sasa Mfano mwaka ule na mwez ule umefika Mume hakutekelz ahad yake na mke akaamua kwenda mahakaman kumshitak kwamba mumewe hajatimiz ahad yake basi mume either atalazimshwa na sheria atekelez ahad yake au amlipe fidia mkewe kwa sabab yeye ndiye aliyevunja mkatab

Soma kesi ya Balfour vs Balfour 1919 2KB 571 is leading English contract case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create legally enforceable agreement when the agreement so domestic in nature.

Pia soma Merritt vs Merritt 1970
Hzo kesi mbili zitakupa mwongozo kwa wakat gan mke au Mume atawajibika kisheria kweny mkatab wake.

Asante nawasilisha

Shukran