Legal system of USA
PART A: 1(B)
The laws which form the base of any nation are what form its legal system. The legal system also covers the process which has to be followed when the meaning of the law has to be analysed, along with its enforceability is to be determined. The legal system provides the manner in which the things would be, the rights and obligations, and also the other aspects required to have a proper system in the nation. There are different aspects covered under the legal system, which includes features of doctrine of separation, classifications of law, sources of law, and so on. It is important that once a law is formed, it is constantly adopted, is properly recognized and is adopted by all. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart, a renowned legal philosopher, presented these three topics through rules of change, rules of recognition and rules of adjudication. These rules help in making the legal system better. The 3 part legal system given by Hart has been applied in a range of nations, which includes Australia and USA. The following parts cover the manner in which these rules are applicable in USA, and how they compare with Australia.
The rules of recognition provide that the laws which have been formed are properly recognized. In the United States, the Constitution is deemed as the supreme law; as a result of this constitution, the rules of recognition apply in the nation. The Constitution of US helps in removing the uncertainties. The US Constitution brings through it the doctrine of separation of powers, the classification of law and also ensures that the rules of change are properly included in the legal system of the nation. So, the legislation once drawn in the nation is not stringent and can be changed where the authority deems it necessary to do so, based on the process stated in the US Constitution. The legal system of US also has a proper hierarchy system which allows for the doctrine of precedent to be applicable in the nation. As a result of this, the rules of adjudication also apply in US. So, the matters are taken step by step from lower to higher courts, to resolve the issue. And the decisions given by the higher courts apply on the lower courts, where the facts of the case are similar.
If the legal system of US is compared with that of Australia, based on the 3 part legal system given by Hart, one could notice a lot of similarity between the applicability of this system. For instance, as is the case in Australia, the legal system of US also covers a doctrine of separation, whereby the powers are divided into three classes of judiciary, executive and legislature. Apart from this, there is a commonality in adopting a hierarchy structure in the judiciary, where one court sits at the top. In Australia, High Court of Australia is the highest court, whilst in US, it is the Supreme Court. The doctrine of precedent applies commonly. The laws of both the nations are open to be amended, modified, repealed, or replaced, based on the procedure laid down in the Constitution of the respective nations. Further, the Constitution of the respective nations is deemed as the highest law of land in both the nations. Yet, even the constitution can be amended, after following a proper procedure. There are different basis of law being classified in the US and Australia, which includes criminal and civil law, procedural and substantive law, and private and public law. There is also a proper system of Parliament, MPs, Cabinets and the other bodies; there is a proper procedure to form the law, and its helping regulations, rules, and other documents.
Comparison of legal systems of Australia and USA
PART B (REPORT)
A contract is a binding document, which creates certain rights and obligations for the parties to such contract. There are different factors which revolve around contract, in terms of formation of contract, vitiating factors, and breach of contract. This report aims to highlight the applicability of these three concepts, with regards to the contract which was created between Barry and Angelo for the sale of business, based on certain terms. The first issue is related to presence of misrepresentation under contract law and Australian Consumer Law and the second issue is related to breach of contract under common law.
2).
I: Issue
Can Barry be successful in claiming misrepresentation before the court and can be he be successful in getting the contract rescinded based on the misrepresentation being present? Does Barry have any rights under the Australian Consumer Law to safeguard his position for misrepresentation?
R: Rule
Before analysing the vitiating factors being present in a contract, there is a need to analyse the terms of the contract. Such terms, which are carried on during the negotiations phase of the contract, are not binding in the eyes of law, as these are considered as invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is something which comes before the offer is made, and is not necessary to be present in every case. It is important to make differentiation between what exactly has been made, i.e. whether it is an offer or an invitation to treat, and this can be done by analysing the statement which has been made. For instance, Partridge v Crittenden is a leading example of an advertisement being considered as an invitation to treat in general. So, the things or the terms covered under the advertisement cannot be claimed upon under the contract law, in general. Once the offer has been made, the contract is formed, where all the remaining elements of contract are established to be present.
Upon a contract being formed, the terms covered under it become binding. However, there are cases where the court would allow a party from not following the contractual terms. This is mostly given as a remedy where the contractor is rescinded. This remedy is given in cases of misrepresentation. In simple words, the statement which is made to induce a party in getting into the contract, where this is a false statement relating to a fact or law, it would be deemed as misrepresentation. Bisset v Wilkinson is a leading case which clarifies that this false statement has to be one of fact or law, and a claim of misrepresentation would not be upheld where this statement is one of opinion or covers a certain advice. This does not mean that a person cannot be made liable for the false opinion given by them in every case. Where it can be shown, as was done in Smith v Land & House Property Corp, that the person making the false statement, held such a position, which allowed them to know the truth behind the made statement of opinion, they would be held liable. Remedy for misrepresentation is available only when the aggrieved party has relied on the false statement of fact being made, as was established in Horsfall v Thomas.
Misrepresentation under common law and Australian Consumer Law
The provisions of misrepresentation are also provided in the statutory law, and this is the law meant for protecting the consumers. Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 is a substantial legislation in this regard, which covers the provisions against misrepresentation under one of its schedules, which is otherwise known as the Australian Consumer Law. There is a strict prohibition on false and misleading representation under section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Where any advertisement makes false or misleading representation, the advertising party can be made liable under this legislation. Section 35 places prohibition on bait advertising. In The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Charles Tyrwhitt had to pay penalty for false advertisement regarding the price, which misled the consumers into purchasing their product.
A: Application
This case has Angelo giving up an advertisement. There is a need to analyse if this advertisement was an invitation to treat or offer. Partridge v Crittenden dictates that this would be deemed as an invitation to treat, as it covers certain terms being advertised. These terms require certain steps to be undertaken and for an offer to be made, as the advertisement is not clear in itself regarding all the aspects of contract, making it an invitation to treat. This means that whatever is stated in the advertisement, would not be binding on Angelo.
Coming to misrepresentation, Barry had been told by Angelo that the business incurred a certain sum of money as expenses. But due to Angelo hiding material fact regarding the delivery van, he expenses were raised. This was done to induce Barry into the contract as a higher expense base would have made Barry rethink of Angelo’s offer. This expense can be deemed as opinion by Bisset v Wilkinson though the chances of this being upheld is very less. This is due to applicability of Smith v Land & House Property Corp as Angelo was in a position to know the real expenses of business and to know that the delivery van carried a lease with it. This would make the claims of Barry regarding misrepresentation against Angelo a high chance of success based on this knowledge.
Coming to the statutory law of ACL, the advertisement would have applicability of section 29 and 35 on it. As was found in The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission here also there was a lie regarding turnover of the business in the advertisement. The real turnover was way less than the claimed upon turnover in the advertisement. Furthermore, there were claims of no competitor and business making certain revenue, which were untrue. These were just to bait Barry and to mislead him regarding the business. Thus, penalty provisions would become applicable on Angelo.
Breach of contract under common law
C: Conclusion
From this discussion, it can be concluded that Barry would be successfully able to claim remedies under the common law and the statutory law, for the misrepresentation undertaken by Angelo. Further, penalty provisions for misrepresentation based on provisions of ACL would also apply on Angelo.
3).
I: Issue
Can Barry be successful in claiming breach of contract before the court where he is not successful in getting the contract rescinded?
R: Rule
As has been touched upon in the introduction segment of this report, the terms of the contract are to be fulfilled properly. Where this is not done, the aggrieved party gets the option of claiming a breach of contract for the contractual obligations not having been undertaken by the breaching party. When the contract is breached, the aggrieved party can claim remedies by going to the court. There are different types of remedies which are available and these include monetary compensation being paid as damages, or equitable remedies being awarded like injunction, specific performance, rescission, and repudiation. The damages are awarded, as per the statement made by judges in Addis v Gramophone, to put the aggrieved party in the pre contractual position.
Usually for breach of contract, only monetary compensation is provided to the aggrieved party. However, where the court concludes that damages are not sufficient to remedy the aggrieved party, they award equitable damages which take the forms stated above. The specific performance order is given by courts where the aggrieved party is asked specifically to do something or to perform the obligation covered under the contract. Injunction does just the opposite and stops the individual from doing something. Rescission and repudiation allows the aggrieved party to not perform the obligations covered under the contract. At times, when the parties are not able to get the contract rescinded under misrepresentation, they can claim damages for it, and also for the breach of contract, if any takes place.
A: Application
The four issues given are quite detailed and have to be dealt with separately. The first issue is regarding the claims of turnover in the advertisement proving to be false in reality. As has been explained in the previous section, the claims regarding advertisements were covered in advertisement which was an invitation to treat. This means that the terms covered in advertisement are not binding and are not a part of the contract. As these are not a part of the contract, breach of contract cannot be claimed for a lower turnover.
Moving on to the second issue, the claims in the advertisement were for no competitors. Again, based on the justification given for first claim, this claim would also be denied as the advertisement term would be deemed as an invitation to treat. So, even this term was not a part of the contract. This means that a breach of contract cannot be claimed for a competitor being present.
Moving on to the third issue; the contract between Angelo and Barry provided that the delivery van was being sold to Barry, along with the business, by Angelo. Angelo did not provide that this delivery van was on lease and actually sold it to Barry. As a claim for lease on delivery van was later established, it would be deemed as a breach of contract on part of Angelo as he never sold the van to Barry, since he never owned one. This would allow Barry to claim damages for breach, in terms of monetary compensation. Equitable remedies are not needed here, as monetary compensation would put Barry in pre contractual position, where he could purchase the delivery van or pay expenses for it from the amount recovered as damages.
Moving to the last claim, the contract was silent on condition of loader. Without anything being promised for loader condition in the contract, a claim cannot be made for breach of contract due to improper condition of the loader.
C: Conclusion
From this discussion, it can be concluded that Barry will be successful in claiming breach of contract before the court where he is not successful in getting the contract rescinded.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
