Hart’s Three-Part Legal System and Analysis
1.In this file, the legal system of United Kingdom will be analysed to evaluate how it addresses the requirements of Hart’s three-part legal system. Further, it will be compared with the legal system of Australia to address the same requirements. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart divided legal rule include two parts which include primary and secondary rules. Hart provided a legal system requires three types of secondary rules which include rules of recognition, rules of change and rules of adjudication. The rules of recognition given by Hart provide to prevent uncertainty about the law and the process of development of the law should be certain and free from ambiguity. In case of UK, there are three sources of law which include legislation, common law and European Union law which avoid ambiguity regarding the formation of a law which proves the availability of rule of recognition principle given by Hart. Furthermore, the laws in the UK are changed by the government and the court when any discrepancies are found in either public or private law.
When any problem emerges on the agenda of the government or based on the request made by the court, a bill is proposed in the Parliament based on which rules are replaced, added, deleted or changed. This proves the existence of Hart’s rule of change in the legal system of UK. The rule of adjudication highlight the limitations in the law by empowering bodies to determine whether the individual has broken any primary rules and it also provides the procedure to seek an adjudication. The legal system in the UK is divided into two parts which include public law and private law. The public law governs the relationship between the state and individuals whereas the private law governs relationships between private organisations and individuals. Different courts have been established in the country which handles criminal and civil cases based on public laws and private law matters such as contract, employment, land, negligence, family matters and others issues. In criminal cases, the concept of mens rea (guilty mind) applies which means the crime has to be proved without any doubt. Therefore, it proves that the rule of adjudication is applied in the legal system of the UK.
The three-part legal system given by Hart applies to the legal system in Australia. The secondary rules given by Hart are included in the Constitution of Australia, and its legal system is based on English law. The Constitution of Australia of 1901 provides established a federation of States which is called Commonwealth of Australia, and it defined the scope of federal powers. The rule of recognition applies to the Australian legal system because the authority of law is clear which is given in the Constitution. The judges have the power to create laws which applies to the courts as long as they did not contradict with the laws implemented by the Australian Parliament. The Constitution clearly defines the scope of power; therefore, the rule of recognition applies in the legal system. While comparing it with the legal system of the UK, both are similar in terms of rule of recognition because the scope of power is clearly established in both legal systems.
Legal System of UK
The rule of change also applies in the Australian legal system because the Constitution has established clear policies for change, replace, delete and adding of the law. The government proposes the bill in the House of Parliament, and the majority of votes passes it. Similarly, as the government of the UK, the Australian government monitors of application of laws and it proposed new bills for changing, deleting, adding or replacing of the law. Just as compared to the UK’s legal system, the Australian legal system complies with the rule of adjudication. The courts are divided in order to hear criminal and civil matters. In case of criminal matters, the principle of mens rea applies just as the UK’s legal system. The hierarchy of the courts includes High Court, Supreme Court, and the Federal court which are the superior courts. Further, district, magistrate and state tribunals are known as intermediate, inferior and tribunals respectively. The hierarchy is similar to the court system in the UK. Therefore, the three-part legal system given by Hart is widely acceptable, and both Australia and the UK comply with the same.
2.Issue
The issue is whether a valid contract exists between Barry and Angelo based on the statements made by Angelo before the contract was established?
A contract is referred to a legal agreement which binds two or more parties to its terms. In case of breach or noncompliance with the terms, the party can file a suit against another party for breach of the contract for enforcing the performance or demand for damages. In order to form a valid contract, there are three essential elements which are necessary to be fulfilled by the parties to the contract. The first essential element is that an agreement should be established between the parties on definite terms. It is necessary that one party made an offer for contract to another and the party accepts the offer without any changes in its terms. The second essential element is the intention of the parties to enter into a legal contract and create a legal relationship. The third element is consideration provided by each party which include price, performance or a promise.
Furthermore, there are three possible defeating conditions as well which makes a contract void such as lack of legal capacity, lack of genuine assent and illegality. An offer is a crucial element which affects the legality of a contract. It refers a commitment to do or not do something in return for something to be done or not done by the other party. An offer is different from an invitation to treat. The offer is a commitment in the sense that if offeree accepts the offer than the offeror is bound by its terms whereas an invitation to treat does not bound its parties and they can negotiate the terms of the contract. The Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394 is a good example in which the defendant displayed a knife at his shop with a price tag, and offering of such knife for sale was an illegal offence. A suit was filed against the shopkeeper, and the court held that display of the knife is not for sale instead it is an invitation to treat.
Legal System of Australia
While making an offer, any statement made by the party in order to attract another party to enter into a legal contract is considered as misrepresentation. A misrepresentation makes a contract void, and the parties can demand damages. Both common law and the statutory law provide that false statements make a contract invalid. However, mere opinion regarding a fast cannot be constituted as a false statement. A good example was given in Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1884) 24 Ch D 7 case. In this case, the plaintiff made an offer to sale his hotel by stating that it was let to a “most desirable tenant”. Based on such statement, the defendant purchased the hotel, and later the tenant become bankrupt. The plaintiff argued that the statement was mere opinion hence he cannot be held liable. The court held that the statement made by the plaintiff was a false statement rather than a mere opinion; therefore, he is liable for the damages. Although common law considers advertisement as an invitation to treat, however, section 29 of the Consumer and Competition Act (2010) in statutory law provides that any misleading advertisement is considered as misrepresentation based on which parties can be held liable.
In the case of Barry, Angelo issued an advertisement in the paper regarding sale of a business that is highly profitable and has no competitors. The advertisement is an invitation to treat because it cannot accept by anyone and parties are required to enter into a contract with Angelo. As per the judgement of Fisher v Bell case, parties cannot be held liable or bound by the offer in case of invitation to treat. However, as per Consumer and Competition Act 2010, Angelo can be held liable for posting misleading advertisement. Furthermore, Angelo told Barry that expenses of the business were $8,000 for a month whereas Barry had to pay $8,500. Although Angelo can claim that the number of expenses was just an opinion, however, he was the owner of the business, and he is expected to know its expenses. Therefore, it can be argued that Angelo made the statements to attract Barry to enter into a contract. As per Smith v Land & House Property Corp case, Angelo can be held liable for misrepresentation for providing a false statement regarding his business to Berry, and he can claim for damages.
Conclusion
To conclude, the advertisement is an invitation to treat however as per statutory law Angelo can be held liable for misrepresentation. In case of misleading information about expenses, Barry can held Angelo liable for providing misleading information.
Comparison between Legal Systems of UK and Australia
The issue with whether Barry can file a suit against Angelo for breach of contract?
A contract legally binds its parties into its terms and noncompliance of such terms resulted in a breach of a contract. In case of a breach of contract, the party can file for damages against another party for non-fulfilment of contracting terms. The remedies for breach of contract include rescission, damages, specific performance, injunction and repudiation. In repudiation, the contract comes to an end. In rescission, the party is allowed to go back to the position of pre-contractual position. As provided in Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 2 K.B. 528 case, the court held that the party could only claim for damages which may reasonably occur due to breach of the contract. Furthermore, the aggrieved party can also claim for specific performance of the contract to avoid the losses which occur due to breach of the contract. The remedy of injunction stops a party from breaching the terms of the contract to avoid the losses.
In this case, Angelo provided that the business makes a profit of $20,000 in a month and it did not have any competitors. Although both of the statements are false but they are provided in the advertisement, and as discussed above they were a part of an invitation for treat rather than the actual contract. Therefore, Barry cannot claim for damages from Angelo based on these factors. The selling contract includes the costs for delivery van and loader, however, Angelo did not tell Barry that the van is on the lease. Angelo made a false statement that the monthly expenses of the business are $8,000 whereas after including the lease amount of the van, Barry has to pay expenses of $8,500. Based on this misrepresentation, Barry can file a suit against Angelo for breach of the contract and claim for rescission. Barry can ask for repayment of $15,000 which he paid for purchase of the van, and he can also claim for additional damages which he had to pay because of the misrepresentation of Angelo. As provided in Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd case, the motive of remedies is to claim for damages which occurred due to breach of contract. In case of the loader, nothing was stated in the contract, and there was ambiguity regarding its working condition. Therefore, it would be difficult for Barry to claim for damages for Angelo regarding the loader.
Conclusion
To conclude, Barry can fail a suit against Angelo for claiming the damages for the van and addition expenses. He can file the suit for either misrepresentation or breach of contract. Further, no information was given in the contract regarding the loader; therefore, Barry might not succeed in getting damages for the loader
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
