Contract Law In Australia: Analysis Of A Case Of Breach Of Contract

The Principles of Contract Law in Australia

Question:

Case study on Australian law.
 

Issues

The primary issue that is involved in the given case is that whether there lays the claim of Rosie against the Cheshire University for getting into an agreement and then failing to comply with it.

Several legal rules and principles are to be addressed for making the solution to the legal issues that are involved in the given case. The Contract Law of Australia needs the primary address for the resolution of the issues of the scenario given. The contract law of Australia that is based on the English Law of Contract lays out specific modifications that are statutory in several areas of contract. In the Contract Law of Australia, six principles or elements are considered necessary for the formation of a contract. Those principles are agreement, capacity in legal terms of the parties thereto, consideration, intention of the contracting parties, certainty and formality.

The primary element of the contract formation in Australia is the existence of proper offer and acceptance between the parties to the contract. In any contract the offer is made by the party to the contract called offerer and the other party or the parties to the contract makes the acceptance of the same. It is the general rule that the offer and the acceptance has to be made in the proper form. The primary rule of contract states that the acceptance has to be communicated in the appropriate manner to the party who made the offerer. The capacity is an important element of contract formation. The capacity refers to the legal capacity. It means that the parties to any contract must be of eighteen years that is of the legal age. The parties must not be under any mental illness at the time of signing any contract. The parties to a contract must not be a prisoner or bankrupt. The next important element is the intention that has to be present in all the parties to the contract to enter into a contractual legal relationship[1]. The terms of the contract has to be certain and shall not be subject to any vagueness. Another important element of contract is consideration. The consideration is that exchange amount that is given by one party of the contract for the services that are rendered by the other party of the contract.

In the territory of Australia, if any contract is formed by making the compliance of the above stated elements, then that contract is completely enforceable in any court of law. The two basic issues that may arise in any contract is regarding the terms of the contract. A contractual term is generally defined as the provisions and the clauses that exist in any contract. The basic rules of interpretation of any contract are the identification of the contractual whether they express or implied and the legal consequences of such terms. The implied conditions are assignable from the legal principles in any contract other than the intention of the parties in any contract.

The Case of Rosie and the Cheshire University

The breach of contract is also present in the given case. The term breach of contract refers to the act by one party of the contract not to conform to the terms of the contract that is agreed. The breach of contract also makes the inclusion of the non-performance of contract. 

Several case laws can be used as examples to make the resolution of the issues that are involved in the given scenario. In the case of Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24 [16][2], the Court held that in any contract having the implied terms of contract, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• Equitability and reasonable: the implied terms of any contract must be equitable and reasonable. For implying any term of a contract, reasonableness cannot be considered as a sufficient reason alone.
• Efficacy or efficiency of business: it has to be made sure that business efficacy is given to a contract in order to ensure that no contract term is implied in case the contract is effective without that term.
• Obviousness: the term that has to be implied must be obvious to that extent that “it goes without saying”.
• Clarity: the terms that are to be implied must be clear and must have expression in the precise form.
• Consistency: the implied terms must not make the contradiction of those terms of the contract that are expressly provided.

The non-performance of contract has happened in the first part of the scenario given. In the given scenario, Allen gives the offer to Rosie for appointing her in the post of co-teacher in the subject of law in the postgraduate level. Allen is a course coordinator in the Cheshire University. After getting the offer, Rosie indulged herself in several interactions with Allen over telephone and came to know of the timetable and the courses of study. Subsequent to that , Rosie received an appointment letter that included the term that ‘Cheshire University reserves its right to cancel classes if there is insufficient student enrolment’. The appointment letter also acknowledged that fact of appointing Rosie as the teacher.

Subsequent to the above fact, it was declared that there has been sufficient registration of student and hence the university can go ahead with the course. Based on the said declaration, Rosie started preparing herself for delivering lectures by making her study materials. She was prepared to get into the university and for that she refused an opportunity to work in the Research Institute for Consumer Rights as a consultant. Allen was also aware of the fact of Rosie’s preparation but was not aware of the fact that she turned down the offer of Research Institute for Consumer Rights. After this, she received an email from Allen that there is no requirement of Rosie in the university.

It is clear from the above facts that there existed a contract of employment between University of Cheshire, through Allen, and Rosie. Rosie also got the letter of appointment from the university and the condition of enrolment of sufficient student enrolment was fulfilled. Hence, it can be said the offer to contract was made by the university and Rosie accepts it with terms and conditions. Based on the appointment letter, Rosie left the job of consultant at the Research Institute for Consumer Rights. Now, the university is making the breach of contract by not taking Rosie in the job. Hence, Rosie can make the claim against the university for the breach and non-performance of contract. 

Conclusion

Advice to Rosie in relation to Allen

The advice that can be given to Rosie is that she can claim against Allen for the non-performance or breach of contract. Rosie can either claim for damages for the loss she sustained by refusing to work as a consultant at the Research Institute for Consumer Rights. She refused because of having the appointment letter from Allen. Rosie can also claim for the specific performance of the contract that existed between her and Allen. It would mean that she would be the teacher of the Cheshire University as stipulated in the contract.

Breach of Contract and Non-Performance

Issues

The primary issue that is involved in the given case is whether Rosie has the right to claim against Little Nemo. The other issue that is involved in the case is whether Little Nemo is entitled to ask for compensation from Rosie for the raw materials that were destroyed due to the fire.

The primary element of the contract formation in Australia is the existence of proper offer and acceptance between the parties to the contract. In any contract the offer is made by the party to the contract called offerer and the other party or the parties to the contract makes the acceptance of the same. It is the general rule that the offer and the acceptance has to be made in the proper form. The primary rule of contract states that the acceptance has to be communicated in the appropriate manner to the party who made the offerer. The capacity is an important element of contract formation. The capacity refers to the legal capacity. It means that the parties to any contract must be of eighteen years that is of the legal age. The parties must not be under any mental illness at the time of signing any contract. The parties to a contract must not be a prisoner or bankrupt. The next important element is the intention that has to be present in all the parties to the contract to enter into a contractual legal relationship[3]. The terms of the contract has to be certain and shall not be subject to any vagueness. Another important element of contract is consideration. The consideration is that exchange amount that is given by one party of the contract for the services that are rendered by the other party of the contract.

The non-performance of the terms of any contract amounts to the breach of contract. But in accordance to the Australian Contract Law, if the non-performance of the contract is made due to the happening of any reasonable accident, then such non-performance shall not be considered as the breach of contract.

In the scenario given, the elements of negligence of the tort law are also involved. The term negligence is generally defined as the failure in making the exercise of that degree of care in any circumstances that is required by the law for making the protection of the interests of some other person that is subject to be affected seriously by the lack of such care[4]. The primary features of negligence are existence of duty of taking care by the defendant, the breach of duty to take care and the failure of the plaintiff to take the reasonable care has resulted in loss of the defendant.

The Australian High Court made the approval of the above conditions of the implied terms on several occasions. In the case of Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72[5], the High Court of Australia made the view that intentions by which the parties to the contract intend to enter into a contract must be expressed in a formal document.

Damages and Compensation

it is seen that Rosie also involves herself in performing the role of administration by conducting seminars of research that were followed by lunches. In a seminar conducted by Rosie, there was the invitation that was given to a Nobel winner named Frank. Rosie made the decision of organizing a lunch that would include seafood. The contract of organizing the lunch was granted to the caterers named Little Nemo. The caterer Little Nemo gave the promise of delivering the lunch at the proposed time and date.

The date of delivery of the lunch was 17 June. On the night of 16 June, fire evolved in the working area of Little Nemo. The caterer was not equipped with the alarm of smoke or the system of sprinkling and the kitchen was damaged very badly. Hence, on the date of delivering the lunch the caterer called Rosie and told that it is not possible for them to deliver the lunch. The caterer also claimed for the money of the raw materials from Rosie.

Rosie cannot claim for the failure of the Caterer Littloe Nemo to deliver the lunch. It is because the failure was due to fire that would be a genuine ground for the failure. Rather, Rosie can claim for the negligence of Little Nemo for not having smoke alarm and sprinkling system. Rosie is not also entitled to make the payment of the amount of $500 to Little Nemo for the raw materials. It is because the contract of the caterer with Rosie was for delivering the lunch and not for the raw materials. 

Conclusion

Advice to Rosie in relation to Little Nemo

The advice that can be given to Rosie in relation to Little Nemo is that she can claim against Little Nemo for their negligence of having appropriate sprinkling system and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. Rosie is not entitled to make the payment that is demanded by the Little Nemo for raw materials that were destroyed due to fire. Rosie cannot make the claim for the failure of Little Nemo in delivering the lunch because the failure was for fire and that would be considered as a genuine reason.

Issues

The primary issues that are involved in the given case is that whether Frank is entitled to sue Rosie for the health hazard that occurred to him and the loss that he sustained for his inability to attend another seminar for his bad health.

In the scenario given, the elements of negligence of the tort law are also involved. The term negligence is generally defined as the failure in making the exercise of that degree of care in any circumstances that is required by the law for making the protection of the interests of some other person that is subject to be affected seriously by the lack of such care[6]. The primary features of negligence are existence of duty of taking care by the defendant, the breach of duty to take care and the failure of the plaintiff to take the reasonable care has resulted in loss of the defendant.

In accordance to the Civil Liability Act of 2002 under section 5R and 5S, any person cannot be charged for negligence unless the risk of harm is foreseeable; the risk is not insignificant and any reasonable personable in his position would have taken the reasonable precautions of care[7].

In the scenario given, there is also the existence of the Australian Consumer Law. In accordance to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, any person not under any circumstances engage himself or herself in any commerce or trade that is deceptive or misleading or is of the likelihood of causing deception[8]. 

In accordance to the Sale of Goods Act of 1923, any seller must indulge himself or herself in the selling of those goods or services that have a title and the goods must make the correspondence to the description of those goods that are provided to the consumers. The goods must possess merchantable quality. In the simpler terms, it means that the goods that is to be delivered or sold must be of best quality and not of an inferior quality. It is the right of the consumers to get those goods that fulfills their requirement and must adhere to the quality. The sellers are not permitted to sale inferior goods to the consumers[9].

In the case of McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd of 1980[10], the Court held that the use of the name ‘Big Mac’ may create confusion among the consumers regarding the product produced by two companies named McDonald and McWilliams.

In the case of ACCC v MOI International of 2013[11], the oil company claimed that their oil is comprised of 100% olive oil. However, the later researches made the finding that the oil was made up of 93% of canola oil and contained only 7% olive oil. The company was fined an amount of $20,400.

In the case of ACCC v Pepe’s Duck of 2012, the Court held that the claim of the defendant was false regarding the fact that their ducks were of “open range” and grown in the natural process. The Court adduced a fine of $ 400,000.

In the given scenario, Frank cannot sue Rosie because the Big Whale Company was under the duty to deliver fresh product to Rosie. In accordance to the Consumer Law of Australia, no seller can engage to sell any product that is of below quality. Hence, the claim of Rosie to refund her money against Big Whale Company was valid. Frank also suffered a loss of $5000 for not having the ability to attend another seminar for bad health as a result of food poisoning. Hence, the loss of Frank is foreseeable to the act of Big Whale Company. Frank can make the claim against the Big Whale Company. The claim of the Big Whale Company that the food is consumed already is not valid. It is because the Australian Consumer Law under Section 18 clearly clarifies that no seller can indulge into any misleading action and make the supply of any product that is already contaminated.  The Big Whale Company made the supply of contaminated food and that act is invalid itself. 

Conclusion

Advice to Rosie in relation to Frank

Rosie can also claim for the loss of Frank against the Big Whale Company, as the loss of Frank is foreseeable to the act of the Company.  Rosie can also claim for refund from the Big Whale Company on behalf of Frank.

Issues

The primary issue that was involved is that whether Blue Whale can claim that they are not liable for the health hazard as the food supplied by them are consumed already. The other issue that is involved in the case whether Rosie can ask for the refund of money for the supply of contaminated food.

In the scenario given, the elements of negligence of the tort law are also involved. The term negligence is generally defined as the failure in making the exercise of that degree of care in any circumstances that is required by the law for making the protection of the interests of some other person that is subject to be affected seriously by the lack of such care[12]. The primary features of negligence are existence of duty of taking care by the defendant, the breach of duty to take care and the failure of the plaintiff to take the reasonable care has resulted in loss of the defendant[13].

In accordance to the Civil Liability Act of 2002 under section 5R and 5S, any person cannot be charged for negligence unless the risk of harm is foreseeable; the risk is not insignificant and any reasonable personable in his position would have taken the reasonable precautions of care.

In the scenario given, there is also the existence of the Australian Consumer Law. In accordance to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, any person not under any circumstances engage himself or herself in any commerce or trade that is deceptive or misleading or is of the likelihood of causing deception[14]. 

In accordance to the Sale of Goods Act of 1923, any seller must indulge himself or herself in the selling of those goods or services that have a title and the goods must make the correspondence to the description of those goods that are provided to the consumers. The goods must possess merchantable quality. In the simpler terms, it means that the goods that is to be delivered or sold must be of best quality and not of an inferior quality. It is the right of the consumers to get those goods that fulfills their requirement and must adhere to the quality. The sellers are not permitted to sale inferior goods to the consumers[15].

In the Case of ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54[16], the High Court of Australia gave its decision that the TPG Company has to give fine for indulging into making deceptive and misleading advertisement to make the selling of its service. The High Court of Australia also made the clear point that every seller must make the selling of goods of merchandise quality and shall not engage himself or herself in any conduct that stands to be deceptive and misleading.

In the case of Howe v Teefy[17], the loss of chance due to the non-performance of any contract shall be considered as a loss in making the determination of the damage that is to be given to the victim.

The failure of the Little Nemo caterer forced Rosie to seek for other caterers to deliver the lunch at the seminar. Rosie found Big Whale Caterers who made the advertisement of selling the seafood that would be considered as the product of Australia. The Big Whale Caterers made the promise of delivering the lunch at the right time but at a cost of 15% extra surcharge for delivering the lunch at a very short time. The seminar and lunch was great success. But after the day of the seminar, Rosie got the news that the guests suffered from food poisoning as a result of lunch at the seminar. After the enquiry, it was found that the salmon that was offered by the Big Whale Company was not fresh but frozen. The frozen salmon that was offered was not stored properly in cold and got contaminated while it was transported to Sydney.

The Big Whale Company was under the duty to deliver fresh product to Rosie. In accordance to the Consumer Law of Australia, no seller can engage to sell any product that is of below quality. Hence, the claim of Rosie to refund her money against Big Whale Company was valid. Frank also suffered a loss of $5000 for not having the ability to attend another seminar for bad health as a result of food poisoning. Hence, the loss of Frank is foreseeable to the act of Big Whale Company. Frank can make the claim against the Big Whale Company. The claim of the Big Whale Company that the food is consumed already is not valid. It is because the Australian Consumer Law under Section 18 clearly clarifies that no seller can indulge into any misleading action and make the supply of any product that is already contaminated.  The Big Whale Company made the supply of contaminated food and that act is invalid itself. 

Conclusion

Advice to Rosie in relation to Big Whale

The advice that can be given to Rosie is that she can claim against the Big Whale Company under the Australian Consumer Law for the delivery of contaminated salmon meat that resulted in the food poisoning of the guests who attended the seminar. Rosie can claim for damages for not delivering the foodstuffs of the desired quality. Rosie can also claim for the refund of the entire amount that was given by her to the Company.

Issues

The primary issues that are involved in the given case is that whether Frank is entitled to sue Rosie for the health hazard that occurred to him and the loss that he sustained for his inability to attend another seminar for his bad health.

In the scenario given, the elements of negligence of the tort law are also involved. The term negligence is generally defined as the failure in making the exercise of that degree of care in any circumstances that is required by the law for making the protection of the interests of some other person that is subject to be affected seriously by the lack of such care[18]. The primary features of negligence are existence of duty of taking care by the defendant, the breach of duty to take care and the failure of the plaintiff to take the reasonable care has resulted in loss of the defendant.

In accordance to the Civil Liability Act of 2002 under section 5R and 5S, any person cannot be charged for negligence unless the risk of harm is foreseeable; the risk is not insignificant and any reasonable personable in his position would have taken the reasonable precautions of care.

In the scenario given, there is also the existence of the Australian Consumer Law. In accordance to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, any person not under any circumstances engage himself or herself in any commerce or trade that is deceptive or misleading or is of the likelihood of causing deception[19]. 

In accordance to the Sale of Goods Act of 1923, any seller must indulge himself or herself in the selling of those goods or services that have a title and the goods must make the correspondence to the description of those goods that are provided to the consumers. The goods must possess merchantable quality. In the simpler terms, it means that the goods that is to be delivered or sold must be of best quality and not of an inferior quality. It is the right of the consumers to get those goods that fulfills their requirement and must adhere to the quality. The sellers are not permitted to sale inferior goods to the consumers[20].

In the case of McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd of 1980[21], the Court held that the use of the name ‘Big Mac’ may create confusion among the consumers regarding the product produced by two companies named McDonald and McWilliams.

In the case of ACCC v MOI International of 2013[22], the oil company claimed that their oil is comprised of 100% olive oil. However, the later researches made the finding that the oil was made up of 93% of canola oil and contained only 7% olive oil. The company was fined an amount of $20,400.

In the case of ACCC v Pepe’s Duck of 2012, the Court held that the claim of the defendant was false regarding the fact that their ducks were of “open range” and grown in the natural process. The Court adduced a fine of $ 400,000.

In the given scenario, Frank cannot sue Rosie because the Big Whale Company was under the duty to deliver fresh product to Rosie. In accordance to the Consumer Law of Australia, no seller can engage to sell any product that is of below quality. Hence, the claim of Rosie to refund her money against Big Whale Company was valid. Frank also suffered a loss of $5000 for not having the ability to attend another seminar for bad health as a result of food poisoning. Hence, the loss of Frank is foreseeable to the act of Big Whale Company. Frank can make the claim against the Big Whale Company. The claim of the Big Whale Company that the food is consumed already is not valid. It is because the Australian Consumer Law under Section 18 clearly clarifies that no seller can indulge into any misleading action and make the supply of any product that is already contaminated.  The Big Whale Company made the supply of contaminated food and that act is invalid itself.

Conclusion

Advice to Frank in relation to Rosie

The loss of $5000 that was suffered by Frank for his failure to attend another seminar was due to the food poisoning that he sustained in the seminar conducted by Rosie. The loss of Frank is foreseeable to act of the Big Whale of delivering contaminated salmon meat. Hence, Frank can claim against Big Whale Company for the loss of $5000. 

Issues

The primary issues that exists between Frank and Big Whale is that whether Frank is entitled to claim against Big Whale for his loss of $5000 that he sustained for the failure of attending the seminar as a result of eating contaminated food supplied by the Big Whale Company.

In the scenario given, the elements of negligence of the tort law are also involved. The term negligence is generally defined as the failure in making the exercise of that degree of care in any circumstances that is required by the law for making the protection of the interests of some other person that is subject to be affected seriously by the lack of such care[23]. The primary features of negligence are existence of duty of taking care by the defendant, the breach of duty to take care and the failure of the plaintiff to take the reasonable care has resulted in loss of the defendant[24].

In accordance to the Civil Liability Act of 2002 under section 5R and 5S, any person cannot be charged for negligence unless the risk of harm is foreseeable; the risk is not insignificant and any reasonable personable in his position would have taken the reasonable precautions of care.

In the scenario given, there is also the existence of the Australian Consumer Law. In accordance to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, any person not under any circumstances engage himself or herself in any commerce or trade that is deceptive or misleading or is of the likelihood of causing deception[25]. 

In accordance to the Sale of Goods Act of 1923, any seller must indulge himself or herself in the selling of those goods or services that have a title and the goods must make the correspondence to the description of those goods that are provided to the consumers. The goods must possess merchantable quality. In the simpler terms, it means that the goods that is to be delivered or sold must be of best quality and not of an inferior quality. It is the right of the consumers to get those goods that fulfills their requirement and must adhere to the quality. The sellers are not permitted to sale inferior goods to the consumers[26].

In the Case of ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54[27], the High Court of Australia gave its decision that the TPG Company has to give fine for indulging into making deceptive and misleading advertisement to make the selling of its service. The High Court of Australia also made the clear point that every seller must make the selling of goods of merchandise quality and shall not engage himself or herself in any conduct that stands to be deceptive and misleading.

In the case of McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd of 1980[28], the Court held that the use of the name ‘Big Mac’ may create confusion among the consumers regarding the product produced by two companies named McDonald and McWilliams.

In the case of ACCC v MOI International of 2013[29], the oil company claimed that their oil is comprised of 100% olive oil. However, the later researches made the finding that the oil was made up of 93% of canola oil and contained only 7% olive oil. The company was fined an amount of $20,400.

In the given scenario, it is evident that there is negligence involved in the part of the Big Whale Company. It is because they should have taken the proper care in ensuring that they do not deliver the contaminated salmon. Since they failed to perform the proper care, there is claim of Frank against the Big Whale Company.

Conclusion

Advice to Frank in relation to Big Whale

The advice that can be given to Frank in relation to the Big Whale Company is that he can claim for the loss that he sustained of an amount of $5000 as forfeiture for failing to attend to a seminar because of food poisoning from eating contaminated salmon meat supplied by Big Whale Company. The claim of Frank would be valid because the loss he sustained is foreseeable to the delivery of contaminated salmon by the Big Whale Company. Hence, Frank can claim along with Rosie against the Company for supply of degraded foodstuff under the Australian Consumer Law.    

Reference List

“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002”. Austlii.edu.au. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 June 2016.

ACCC v MOI International [2013 ] FCA 570 at [18]

ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54

Australian Business Law. (CCH), 2016. Print.

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24 [16]

Contract In Context. (CCH), 2014. Print.

Hillman, Robert A. The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law. Vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301

Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72

McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394

Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[1] Australian Business Law. (CCH), 2016. Print

[2] Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24 [16]

[3] Australian Business Law. (CCH), 2016. Print

[4] Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[5] Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72

[6] Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[7] (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002”)

[8] Hillman, Robert A. The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law. Vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

[9] Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

[10] McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394

[11] ACCC v MOI International [2013 ] FCA 570 at [18]

[12] Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[13]  (Contract In Context 1-4)

[14] Hillman, Robert A. The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law. Vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

[15] Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

[16] ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54

[17] Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301

[18] Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[19] Hillman, Robert A. The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law. Vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

[20] Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

[21] McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394

[22] ACCC v MOI International [2013 ] FCA 570 at [18]

[23] Twigg-Flesner, Christian. The Europeanisation of contract law: current controversies in law. Routledge, 2013.

[24]  (Contract In Context 1-4)

[25] Hillman, Robert A. The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law. Vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

[26] Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

[27] ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54

[28] McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394

[29] ACCC v MOI International [2013 ] FCA 570 at [18].