To successfully sue Simon and have full proceedings in court of a law, the agreement that Kim made must fulfil certain contract basics that are established under the English law. Basically, the contract written between Simon and Kim should have an offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations (Advocates for International Development, 2016). First, an offer is an expression of willingness to contract following terms that are specified made with the assumption or intention it will bind once accepted as established in the case of Stover v Manchester City Council. An offer can be by conduct or by words and should be distinguished from invitation to treat as ruled in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. In the present case, there was an offer from Simon to provide Kim with a personal bodyguard 24 hour a day whilst the show is in production at a personal cost to him of £10,000 a day.
Considering there was an offer, the next item that the contract should fulfil to be considered valid in an English court is acceptance. An acceptance is a final unqualified expression of assenting to the offer terms provided by the offeror. The legal of effect of an acceptance takes place after communication is made. Generally, postal acceptance happens after the letter of acceptance has been posted as determined in the case Henthorn v Fraser even if there was delay or the letter was destroyed or lost. Nonetheless, the postal rule does not take effect in situations where the mode of communication has been specified. Importantly to also note is that silence should not be equated to acceptance. In addition, a communication might not be impactful as an acceptance if it seeks to make variations to the terms offered. When this happens, it is regarded as a counter offer which can be rejected or accepted by the original offeror as was ruled in Hyde v Wrency. However, it is critical to make a distinction between request for further information concerning the original offer made and counter-offer. Before acceptance, an offer might be revoked nonetheless, there must be communication to the offeror as was in Byrne v Van Tienhoven. After acceptance, the parties reach an agreement. In the case of Simon and Kim, assumption can be made that there was acceptance as Kim was part of the show. Thus, she agreed to the terms offered but this alone is not sufficient for creating legal obligations.
The third element that a contract should have is consideration. Consideration is considered to be something that has value often given as a promise. A consideration is significant in making a promise enforceable by a judge in an English court. The consideration involved should be sufficient but not necessary adequate mainly because the courts do not interfere with the negotiations or bargain between the parties involved (Advocates for International Development, 2016). Parties involved in a contract should get valuable consideration for honouring their responsibilities. In the present situation, there is a monetary consideration of £10,000 payable by Simon to Kim’s bodyguard. The final component of a contract is a contractual intention which means that the parties should intend to have th agreement made legally binding. In a court, the judge can identify intention to create legal relations through the objective test as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company or using the rebuttal presumption which seeks establishing burden of proof and can be rebutted to the contrary through evidence.
Finally, if a contract existed, Kim will have to prove to the courts that there was a breach of the said contract by Simon. A breach of contract occurs when a party in a contract fails to do as set out in the agreement. In the case of Sumpter v Hedges, a builder performed part of the work and abandoned the rest. The Court of Appeal determined that while the buyer used the foundations to have the job complete, the builder could not claim or recover any money for what was left in the land. For Kim to prove that there was breach of contract, she will first be required to show that there was a legally binding agreement where Simon had agreed to cater full cost charges of a personal bodyguard (Cuthbert 2018). In this case, Kim will have to produce the legally binding contract entered with Simon. The second step will involve showing to the court that there was a breach of contract. The third and among the most important is showing the court that she suffered a loss which was a direct consequence of the contract breach (Cuthbert 2018).
The aim of the damages provided by a court of law is putting the innocent party in a position the she could have been if the contract was executed as agreed (Cotton 1999). Commonly, this is referred to as the remoteness of loss whose principles were spelled under the case of Hadley v Baxendale. The losses that are recoverable are those that flow naturally from the breach, and those which were in contemplation of the parties during contract agreement. In case the court finds that the loss is not within any of these described, it is considered too remote and cannot be recovered. The underlying principle is that damages are not meant to be a gain for the defendant. In other words, the purpose of the damages are for compensating a loss which is established and not provision of gratuitous benefit to the part that is aggrieved (Advocates for International Development 2016). Kim will need to understand that if she sues and the court finds Simon did not execute part of the contract as agreed, the damages awarded will have to be after measuring. The measure of damages consists of the method that calculates damages to which the innocent party in this case Kim is permitted and covers the expectation loss and the loss of bargain. The aim of the court is ensuring that the innocent party is put in a position that they would have been if the contract were performed properly as set out in the case of Robinson v Harman. The most appropriate methods that the court might use depending on the situation are cost of cure or difference in value. In circumstances where the court finds it difficult proving the loss of expectation, reliance loss could be used. The purpose of reliance loss is putting the aggrieved party into a position that they would have been if there was no contract between the parties. In other words, it becomes an indemnity for the pocket expenses used in trying to meet the contract. The reliance loss was coined in the case of Anglia TV v Reed. There are other forms of loss that innocent parties have claimed through English courts determination. On the other hand, damages for mental distress or disappointment are rarely awarded as ruled in Addis v Gramophone unless the involved contract is holiday related as determined in Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd.
There are different types of remedies to a breach of contract as will later be discovered in this report. Among the critical question, that Kim will have to ask is whether to sue for breach of contract. Thus, she will need to assess the merits of the claim and make a reflection if it is worth pursuing. Kim will also need to contemplate her relationship with Simon. There is no doubt that breach of contract is specified under the English law and if she convinces the court that loss was suffered, damages can be awarded to her. However, are there other alternative methods that Kim can consider before resorting to the legal proceedings for the contract breach?
In determination of the damages, the court might either rule on equitable or inadequate remedy. The equitable remedies are often discretionary and aims at ensuring that party that is injured is not treated in an unjust manner through confinement to the remedy of damages spelled out in common law. Among the equitable remedy that a court of law grants at their discretion is specific performance (Pearce, and Halson 2008). This type of remedy is a decree by courts to compelling a party to perform their obligations as spelled out in the contract. Often, a judge in English court of law will award this remedy when the damages are not adequate such as having a unique contract as determined in the case of Falcke v Gray. As a rule of not ordering specific performance is where the contract requires constant supervision or performance in a certain period and when the contract obligations remain vague. The second type of equitable remedy is an injunction which means that it I only granted via the courts discretion.
The courts might also determine to provide Kim with monetary remedies such as compensatory damages where Simon will have to pay some amount of money reimbursing costs and offering compensation for losses suffered in this case jewellery. The courts can also award consequential and incidental damages particularly when all the parties were aware of the potential losses during contract agreement and signing in case there was a breach (LinkiLaw 2018). The present situation between Kim and Simon can be fully described as above because all the parties were aware of how vulnerable Kim was because of her status in the society. Moreover, Simon took it as a personal initiative to have Kim provided with a personal bodyguard as he was aware of previous robbery incident. Following this revelation, Kim can sue Simon for the breach of contract as it was well known failure to have the bodyguard would likely result to targeting by criminals. The main challenge will be to convince a judge of the court why she left the party alone despite also knowing how vulnerable she was. Apart from this, a court can offer Kim liquidated damages which is a number provided in the contract in a case there was a breach.
Kim will further need to know that according to English common law, a party that is deemed innocent cannot recover a loss which could have been avoided through taking steps that are reasonable. Often, it has been expressed as the duty to mitigate. In such a case, Simon will have an opportunity to prove that Kim failed in mitigating the loss suffered, in this case, leaving the party early and going to the hotel alone without the bodyguard accompanying her. This was in the case of Pilkington v Wood. Simon can argue that the most reasonable action for Kim would have been ensuring she left the party with the bodyguard regardless of the time. In Wales and England, the common law provides that a victim to contract breach is responsible for ensuring loss mitigation. In other words, the innocent party should not be active in making the situation worse. Considering this provision, Kim will need to re-evaluate whether to sue Simon considering her decision to leave the party early might have been the cause of her troubles. What if she had waited until the party ends? Did she alert the bodyguard when leaving? Did Kim permit the bodyguard to continue partying and she would see him the next day at the hotel? These are some of the questions that the court will need answers when determining if there was a breach of contract. Consequently, Kim will have to ensure that the facts of the matter favour her before proceeding to sue. The English common law provides that victims to contract breach should have taken reasonable steps of ensuring the loss is avoided or decreased. While the mitigate loss according to common law is a voluntary duty, courts can find that the ‘breacher’ was not responsible for some of the losses.
While there are other remedies that Kim can get from the courts if they find Simon was in breach of contract, there is limitation of actions she needs to know. First, an innocent party might lose the right of bringing claims of contract breach if she delays for a certain period. There is statutory limiting periods that have been set out by the Limitation Act 1980 and it also makes a distinction between deeds and contracts. For deeds, the time to launch claims in a court of law is approximately 12 years from when there was accrual of cause of action. On the other hand, for contracts, the plaintiff should claim within six years. In a case where there was a mistake or fraud, the limiting period does not run until the party aggrieved makes a discovery of this. At the same time, Kim ought to know that there is a 3-year limit in terms of damages associated with personal injuries arising from the contract breach.
Kim ought to know that proceeding to sue Simon can give rise to an opportunity of the court awarding termination as a remedy. In such a case, the injured party is released from their obligation to perform due to the other party’s failure to execute their duty as agreed. Breach of contract will provide Kim with an option of terminating the contract or affirming it for purposes of claiming performance. Importantly note is that termination is dependent on the injured party and not the accused party. The innocent party should unequivocally indicate the desire to terminate the contract by either commencing proceedings or giving notice to the other party. Additionally, termination of the contract does not release the accused party of performing obligations that had been accrued before.

References
Advocates for International Development (2016). Basic Principles of English contract law. [Online] Available athttp://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf [Accessed 23rd June 2018]
Cotton, S. (1999). Remedies for breach of contract. Practical Law. United Kingdom. [Online] Availableathttps://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-101-0603?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1[Accessed 23rd June 2018].
Cuthbert, S. (2018). How do I sue for breach of contract? Burnetts. [Online] Available at https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/how-do-i-sue-for-breach-of-contract[Accessed 23rd June 2018]
Limitation Act 1980
LinkiLaw. (2018). How To Deal With A Breach Of Contract: Before, During And After. [Online] Available at http://linkilaw.com/blog/breach-of-contract [Accessed 23rd June 2018]
Pearce, D., & Halson, R. (2008). Damages for Breach of Contract: Compensation, Restitution and Vindication. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 73-98.

List of Cases
Addis v Gramophone Co. Ltd [1909] AC 488
Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Falcke v Gray ([1859] 4 Drew651)
Hadley v Baxendale ([1854] 9 Exch. 341)
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27
Hyde v Wrency [1840] 3 Beav 334.
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] 1 QB 233
Robinson v Harman [1848] 18LJ Ex 202
Stover v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673