Introduction
The amalgamation and agreement of parties to legally legitimise their intentions has many legal aspects to consider; including agreement, legal intent and consideration.
Agreement
An agreement is the amalgamation of two parties’ preferences which consideration is agreed and accepted leading to the formation of a contract subject to terms and conditions. As, ‘Contractual agreement has traditionally been analysed in terms of offer and acceptance.’ (E-Lawresources, 2018). Acceptance of said agreement requires legal guidelines which are applicable to ensure legal legitimacy. The initial party or the ‘offeror’ presents the offer to the ‘offeree’ which the offeree needs to accept the offer as this demonstrates legal intent to form a legally binding contract between the parties. The offer presented from the offeror requires official acceptance through either verbal or written communication and unaltered unless agreed upon as this will render the initial offer void. If the offeree wishes to make an amendment, a counter offer will reject the initial offer relinquishing reinstatement, rendering the initial offer obsolete as seen in, ‘Hyde v Wrench (1840)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018).
Furthermore, once an offer is submitted this will stay open until its accepted or revoked and at anytime before the offeree accepts the offer can be withdrawn, for instance ‘Dickinson v Dodds (1876)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018).
Additionally, subject to the waiver of communication, stipulation of communication method can be agreed. Acceptance of the agreement could be completed by an authorised mediator communicating between parties, subject to date/time, and through communication methods like written correspondence. Until the offer has been accepted and communicated under the stipulated conditions the contract has no legal standing. For instance, the post rule which could be the official acceptance of a contract can legally take place once the acceptance letter is posted.
However, ‘The postal rule will not apply if it is excluded by the express terms of the offer’ (Advocates for International Development, 2016). This implies that the offerors waiver of communication of acceptance method within the terms and conditions takes precedent.
Furthermore, offers must be distinguished from an invitation to treat. As an offer is presented with the intention of being accepted into a legally binding agreement. Whereas, an invitation to treat has the inability to be accepted as its purely an invitation to negotiation.
Consideration
Consideration is an important part to the agreed contract as, ‘Consideration is "something of value" which is given for a promise and is required in order to make the promise enforceable as a contract’ (Advocates for International Development, 2016). The principle of consideration ratifies that the promises of each party of the contract are enforced and that the exchange of something of value is executed. Depending on the party’s consideration, this could be a benefit or detriment.
Furthermore, this can be completed through Bilateral and Unilateral agreements. Within a Unilateral agreement, executed consideration is a promise which has been reciprocated with an act completing the consideration. Within a Bilateral agreement, executory consideration is a promise which hasn’t yet met consideration, a party is legally obliged to execute in a specified manner, subject to contract.
Additionally, guidelines must be met to ensure that consideration within the contract is legal. Firstly, consideration must have value but need not be adequate, denoting that there must be the exchange of a detriment each and benefit each to both the promiser and promisee, otherwise this could be construed as a gift legally.
However, value of the consideration need not be sufficient in the agreement. As the value of said consideration isn’t of the courts concern as they can’t judge on the value.
Furthermore, performance of an existing contractual duty is usually not sufficient as consideration. This is due to the previous contractual obligation having pending execution in which a party suffers no detriment and that the claimant receives what they were legally permitted.
However, there are exceptions including: -
•	It must move from the promise – Consideration would need to be made by the promisee to enable the promisee to enforce consideration from the promisor. The only party that can enforce this is the party that has executed consideration first. As seen in, Pinnel's Case (1602) (E-Lawresources, 2018).
•	Promissory estoppel – Prevents parties within the agreement reneging on their promise as stated in consideration. Conditions of Promissory Estoppel are as follows: -
1.	A pre-existing contract which is then altered.
2.	Change in position, such as financially or due to unforeseen circumstances.

Certain factors can affect the validity of consideration within a contract such as, illegality and misrepresentation. For instance, an agreement to purchase an illegal and misrepresented item. This would render the contract voidable as the agreement would be unlawful to the innocent party, as seen in, ‘Car & Universal Credit v Caldwell (1964)’ (E-Lawresourses, 2018). 
Legal Intent
Legal intent is relating to the legality of agreements between parties which are binding under English contract law, which are consequentially enforceable. As, ‘Legal intent means that the contracting party must have had the intention to form a legally binding contract’ (Inbrief, 2018). Many agreements are not legally binding, denoting that the law presumes that the agreement isn’t legally binding under social and domestic relations. As legal intention between social and domestic parties fail to follow other essential contract criteria like, agreement and consideration as previously mentioned, their presumed legal intention isn’t enforceable by law, as seen in ‘Coward v MIB (1963)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018). 
However, agreements made in a commercial context are presumed to have legal relations between the parties. As agreements under a commercial context would incur an offer, an acceptance of the offer, consideration and legal intent of the contract would be apparent, as seen in ‘Albert v MIB (1971)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018).
Furthermore, the formality of an agreement requires thought within the legal intent of an agreement. As ‘If the key aspects of a contract have been agreed, e.g. service, price and timeframes, then a contract can be enforced.’ (Goodwin, 2015). This could apply during the negotiation process or during verbal discussions, potentially leading to confusion over said agreement. Implications being that the courts can impose business terms to enable this to be enforced which might be in neither parties’ interest. Mitigation of this risk would be to state ‘Subject to Contract’ during the negotiation/agreement process.
Indeed, if a mistake were to arise through the agreement process, this could affect the validity of the contract rendering the agreement voidable. The legal intention within a contract could also be made voidable if it was deemed that one party entering the agreement lacked the capacity to act in their interest rendering the agreement voidable/unenforceable.
Discharge of Contract
Discharge of a contract completes all legal obligations between the parties. The discharging of a contract can take place in various ways: -
•	Performance - Discharge of performance of parties execute the legal obligations of the contract.
•	Agreement – Discharge of agreement takes place when the parties involved mutually agree to end their legal obligations to each other. Ramifications for the parties take place when one party has executed consideration and the other hasn’t, leading to the non-performing party executing its consideration to complete the discharge of agreement.
•	Frustration – Discharge of frustration takes place through changes in circumstances which a party is unable to complete the present contract. The ramifications include the discharging of each party from the contract who are unable to sue for breach of contract, potentially leading to partial consideration being achieved as seen in, ‘Condor v Baron Knights (1966)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018).
•	Breach of contract – Refers to parties within the contract not conforming to their obligations as stipulated within the contract. Consequently, ramifications could leave the unconfirming party liable to litigation and enables the conforming party to repudiate the contract.
Conclusion 
In conclusion, there are many aspects to the essential criteria of; consideration, legal intent and agreement that require careful consideration in the applicability to an individual contract and its specified contractual agreement.
 
Part 2
A significant defect arising from a lack of care in any detail of a construction project.

A defect arising from a construction project could be deemed as negligence under English tort law due to Defective Premises Act 1972, potentially leaving the contractor liable. As, the builder’s responsible ‘to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.’ (Defective Premises Act, 1972). The Defective Premises Act, 1972 ensures the contractor sets a duty of care to the property owner to ensure the construction project is suitable and the contractor conforms to their obligations. Significantly, it stipulates that duty is owed to the building 6 years after completion and if a repair should take place, this restarts the 6-year duty ensuring longevity. Indeed, a breach of this duty must be sufficiently serious to deem the dwelling unsuitable.
The inference to be drawn from this is as the Defective Premises Act 1972 establishes a duty of care, defects arising from a ‘lack of care’ resulting in subsequent damage, establishes a breach of duty of care of the contractor. Indeed, under the English tort law, negligence requires three criteria of, duty of care, breach of duty of care and damage must be caused by the breach as mentioned. Notably, this is seen in ‘Morgan v. Perry (1973)’ (Glover, 2013).
Mitigation of this issue would be through Professional Indemnity Insurance. As, ‘This usually includes a contractual liability that is equivalent to professional negligence, such as a breach of a contractual obligation to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence when carrying out design.’ (Coversure, 2017). This would cover the liability of the contractor providing legal expenses and damages the contractor may incur.
Personal injury arising to an employee during their employment.

A personal injury arising to an employee during their employment could come under various types of legal liability such as; negligence and gross misconduct. However, the legal liability needs to be distinguished between the employee and the employer. As, ‘a vital part of succeeding in claiming compensation after a work injury is to be able to prove that your employer was at fault for your accident.’ (Lawontheweb, 2017). There are various legal aspects in which an employer is legally obliged to conform to under regulations. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 ensures legal requirements such as, workplace signage, fire exits and training providing workplace safety.
Additionally, the policy and procedure declaration of the employment contract could provide ill-advised work information which could be detrimental to the employee, resulting in injury potentially making the employer liable as it’s a foreseeable consequence as seen in, ‘Smith v Leech Brain (1962)’ (E-Lawresources, 2018).
However, the employee may be legally at fault due to their own carelessness. ‘This carelessness is known as 'contributory negligence' and will reduce your compensation’ (Lawontheweb, 2017). As the employee not conforming to employment policy, procedures or health and safety regulations such as, not reporting a hazard, could result in an injury. Consequently, transferring liability onto the employee rather than employer.
The inference to be drawn from this is the employer has a duty of care to ensure that the employee is uninjured. Mitigation of the employers’ liability would be the implementation of Employers’ Liability Insurance which is a legal requirement under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. This covers any insurance claims for an employee such as legal costs and compensation to remedy the employers’ liability.
Personal injury to a member of the public arising from a construction works.

An Injury to a member of the public arising from construction work could be labelled as vicarious liability. As, ‘In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.’ (Acas, 2012). Vicarious liability takes place when an employer is responsible for the acts of an employee which, depending on the circumstances, could be the result of an unlawful act of the employee.
Vicarious liability involves criteria requiring concentrated liability. As the doctrine of respondent superior, makes the employer responsible/liable for the actions of the employee as they’re employed by the employer. Alternatively, the employer’s exception to this statement would be the reasoning behind the employee’s actions, were they authorised in the act or were they expressly prohibited requires determination.
Additionally, if the employee’s act isn’t during the scope of employment such as, after work finishes this is constituted as, ‘on a frolic’ which relinquishes the responsibility of the employer. However, if the employee is on a lunch break, the employer would be liable.
Furthermore, determination of the employees’ contract can relinquish responsibility of parties within vicarious liability. As seen in ‘Carmichael v National Power plc (2000)' (Lawteacher, 2018). This implies that if the employee isn’t punishable under the employment contract such as, a written warning, the employer would have limited control over the employee, thus relinquishing the employer’s liability.
Public liability insurance is used to cover liability of third parties that are injured from acts of work, such as construction work. Although not a legal requirement, public liability insurance covers any legal and compensation costs.