Case Study 1: Breach of Contract – Betty and Jennifer
Applicable area of law is contract law
To offer an advice to Jennifer about her legal rights against her grandmother Betty on the account of breaching the contract
There are some essential that must be present in order to enact an enforceable contract between the parties which are highlighted below (Carter, 2012).
- Valid offer and acceptance
- Lawful consideration
- Capacity on the part of parties to create contract
- Intention to enter into legal relation and so forth.
It is essential to note that in case of domestic contracts when the contract are formed between the family members such as mother daughter or son, husband and wife, it would be considered as legal contract only if the parties have clear and stated intent to enter into a legal relationship. If any of the party has entered in a domestic agreement without the intention of creating legal relation, then the contract would not be enforceable. Further, in domestic arrangements, it is assumed from the outset that intent for creation of legal relationship is absent unless proved otherwise. The leading case in this regards is Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4 (Andews, 2011).
In the present case, Jennifer and her grandmother (Betty) have enacted an agreement. The promise made by Betty was that if Jennifer lived with her in Mount Gambier then she will transfer her house to Jennifer. Jennifer agreed and lived with her. However, Betty refused to transfer the house. In this scenario, Betty and Jennifer has entered in a domestic agreement and there would be no intention on parties behalf to create any legal relation and thus, no enforceable contract is present and Jennifer cannot sue her for not fulfilling the promise.
Conclusion
As no contract is enacted between the parties and thus, Jennifer cannot sue her grandmother.
Applicable area of law is contract law
The central issue is to comment whether the contract is formed between Sanche and Richard.
When the offeree has communicated the conditional acceptance towards the offe, then it would be termed as a counter offer. It is evident from Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 case, that presence of counter offer would result in the cancellation of original offer. Therefore, the offeree cannot enact a contract based on the original offer after making a counter offer (Carter, 2012). Further, based on the verdict of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [11] in 1955 case, if electronic mode of communication (mails fax) is used by the offeree, then acceptance becomes enforceable only if the acceptance message is received by the offeror within the specified time period (McKendrick, 2003).
Case Study 2: Contract Formation – Sanche and Richard
Sanche has extended an offer to Richard to sell his Holden Monaro for $60,000. He has clearly mentioned that offer will remain open till 5 pm on February 3, 2015. Richard receives the offer on February 3 and on the same day he sends his conditional acceptance through SMS to Sanche that consideration amount would be $55,000. It is apparent that conditional acceptance results in counter offer and thus, the original offer would remain no more open for acceptance. Moreover, he further mails Sanche regarding acceptance towards the original offer and sends the acceptance via mail. It is apparent that the mail would be enforceable only if the offeror has received it before the due time. However, Sanche has received it on February 4.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that no contract would be enacted between the parties.
Agency Law is the applicable area of law.
To offer advice to Theresa and Kevin in accordance with the relevant principles.
In accordance, with the agency law, for actions that are enacted by the agent acting on behalf of the principal, the eventual responsibility rests with the principal especially in case of any wrongs done by the agent either on purpose or by mistake. This forms the basis of vicarious liability which has been upheld by Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22. The basis of this lies in the fact that the employer is the superior party and hence must be held liable. Further, this also is aimed at protecting the interest of the third party who entered into the contract in good faith (Gibson & Fraser, 2014).
In the given case, there is an antique dealer Kevin who has appointed an agent named Ravi to sell a table for not less the $ 7,000. However, Ravi accepted the offer of $ 6,500 from Theresa and accepts the money. However, when Theresa comes to collect the table, she notices a scratch and demands the money back. Ravi refuses to entertain her. However, in the given case Kevin would either need to return the $ 6,500 money or provide the same table without a scratch. This is irrespective of fact that Ravi is at fault here.
Conclusion
It may be concluded that Kevin is liable for the acts done by Ravi and thus need to compensate Theresa or provide her with a table in good condition.
The intellectual property law namely the Copyright Act 1968 would be applicable.
Case Study 3: Vicarious Liability – Theresa, Kevin, and Ravi
To determine whether Trevor can accuse Declan of composition stealing.
Copyright is applicable for various expressions of art in the form of literary material, music, art which is attributed to the skill of the user. In case of any such material, the Section 10 of Copyright Act, 1968 is applicable in terms of determining whether the copy infringes on the copyright or not. For any sound recording or piece of music, copyright infringement is not observed if the reproduction has been done with the permission of the original creator (Davenport & Parker, 2014).
In the given case, Trevor has composed some music using a software. He plays one such composition to a group of friends before releasing the same through the distributor in Europe. One of the friends present was Declan who produced an exactly similar composition with the same chords. Further, he markets his composition in Europe and earns huge profits. Clearly, the act done by Declan amounts to stealing of composition as the composition sold by him had the same chords as that played by Trevor. Thus, Trevor can sue Declan an recover damages besides seeking injunction to forbade circulating more copies.
Conclusion
It may be concluded that Declan has indeed stolen the composition.
Applicable area of law is consumer law.
To opine if there has been a breach of contract by Clare.
It is essential that the contracting parties must discharge the contractual commitments or there would be a breach of contract. In terms of contract for sale of business, s. 51(2) of ACL tends to allow restraint of trade conditions to be applicable as the applicability of such clauses is rather limited in Australia. However, in such of sale of business, this is considered valid provided it does not unnecessarily exhibit restrain on the freedom of the individual (Gibson & Fraser, 2014).
In the given case, Clare has sold a successful business to Maddie and as part of the sale contract, there is a trade restraint clause inserted which forbids Clare to operate any business in Adelaide for a period of 10 years. However, after one year, Clare opens a new café in Adelaide where her old customers frequently visit. It is noteworthy that the business open is not related to hairdressing and thus would not in any way impact the commercial interests of Maddie.
Conclusion
Thus, there is no breach of contract in the given case as act of setting a business by Clare does not impact Maddie’s business.
References
Andrews, N. (2011). Contract Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, J. (2012). Contract Act in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
Davenport, S. & Parker, D. (2014). Business and Law in Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law (8th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Publications.
McKendrick, E. (2003). Contract Law (5th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
