Jane Situation in Relation to Dan - Assignment Example

Name: Professor: Course: Date of Submission: Laws of Contracts Question 1 What is Jane situation in relation to a) Dan and b) Disco John? Jane Situation in Relation to Dan Jane and Dan can be presumed to have entered into a contract in which Jane intended to rent an old renovated barn in the Adelaide hills as the venue for her birthday party. The agreement between the two parties reflects express terms in the contract including the rental fee amounting to $2000 and a deposit of $6000 bond for damages to be deposited within a fortnight. Jane made every effort within her means to provide the agreed $6000 deposit within the stipulated time including pledging a gold necklace to a local pawnshop to secure the amount. Deposition of the amount emerges as one of the key conditions leading to completion of the contract. Jane presented the agreed deposit in less than a week after their agreement, which was within the deadline for providing the deposit. However, Dan indicated to Jane that he had rented the venue to a group or client to occupy the venue at the same time that Jane intended to hold her party. From the agreement between the parties, it can be deduced that Dan had accepted the offer to rent out the venue to Jane owing to the agreed fee and deposit as well as the time to deposit the bond. Jane’s decision to proceed with other arrangement clearly shows implied agreement between the parties. Completion of the agreement for the venue paved way to formation of other contracts need to make Jane’s birthday at the barn a success. Therefore, Dan is breach of a contract to rent out his barn to Jane by renting the same venue to another client without revoking the contract by way of communicating to the offer in time. Although, Jane did not indicate that Dan should not rent out the venue as she gets the needed deposit, Dan also failed to indicate that he could rent out the venue to another client who happens to present the entire amount before Jane makes a deposit. In this case, it is implied that Dan had agreed to Jane’s offer and there was nothing else than could lead to termination of the contract until the agreed two weeks time span for provision of the $ 6000 bond. Therefore, Jane could seek a legal redress on the validity of her contract and seek to legally enforce the contract to continue with her party in the same venue or claim damages resulting from the termination of the contract. Legal Basis under Which Jane Could Enforce the Contract or Seek Damages for Dan’s Breach of Contract In the case, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), in which Dodds had offered to sell a house to Dickinson (the Plaintiff) within the offer remaining open until 9am Friday but the offeror sold the house to a third party on Thursday before Dickinson confirmed acceptance of the offer by 9 am Friday, the trial judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The judge based the ruling on the fact that Dodds (Defendant) did not indicate that he could sell the house if another client came by or withdraw the offer. Although, the Court of Appeal reversed the ruling on the basis that the Plaintiff was aware of the change of mind to sell the house to another client since he had received the information about the sale of the house to another party before delivering his acceptance letter as agreed by 9.am Friday. However, Jane’s situation with Dan fits in the first ruling because the she came to know of the decision to rent the venue to another client when delivering the agreed deposit. In this case, Dan did not revoke the offer by either formal or informal communication, a phenomenon that amounts to breach of contract. Dan had given Jane an option to provide the deposit within the stipulated time line making the contract enforceable if the Jane had prove for committing herself to fulfill the promise to provide the agreed amount. Jane’s contract could not be treated as terminated because of the evidence for implied acceptance of the offer and failure to communicate the change of mind about the offer (Lambiris and Griffin73). Since Jane could not use the venue because the function had taken place elsewhere, she can only seek damages arising from the last minute termination of the contract. In the case, Bruner v. Moore, the Judge ruled that an option for value cannot be revoked during the agreed time line and therefore withdrawal of the offer would amount to denying the Plaintiff the right to acceptance. As such, Dan denied Jane the opportunity to accept the offer through deposition of the bond as agreed by terminating the contract even before the agreed time elapsed. Any court should therefore, find it within the contract laws to award Jane damages arising from failure to hold her party as planned. Jane Situation in Relation to John Disco Jane presented her brother John, who runs an entertainment business an offer worth $1000 payable on the night to provide entertainment for birthday. Jane contacted Disco John to revoke the offer after failing to get a venue for the party. Although, an agreement was reached between the two parties, the fact that the two are closely related casts doubt as to whether the agreement was meant to be legally bound. Disco John, however claims that the agreement was legally bound and therefore she should pay the full entertainment fee with or without performance of the contract. A close examination of the agreement shows that her brother entered into the contract on behalf of the company and hence should be treated as legally binding. As such, Disco John is within the legal framework to demand full payment of the agreed amount. Jane revoked the offer on time, and as such cannot pay the entire amount as anticipated by Disco John. Since the law provides offerors with the right to withdraw an offer before acceptance, Jane as the defendant in the case Dan decides to take up the matter with courts would have an upper hand in expecting the judges to rule in her favor. Since Jane contacted her brother and there is no confirmation for acceptance of the offer before she is compelled to revoke the offer, Disco John can therefore not claim that a contract had been entered between them and Jane (Lambiris and Griffin 68). The withdraw or revocation of the offer to Disco John is supported by the ruling in the Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653 in the court held that the offeror had the right to withdraw or revoke the offer before acceptance. In this case, the defendant revoked the offer before the agreed 6-weeks time line when the offer had not been accepted. From the case facts, it is clear that Disco John had anticipated that the offer could be retracted leaving another offer worth $ 500 for the same night open. As such, Disco John has no legal basis to demand for full payment of the entertainment fees because Jane was within the legal framework for revoking an offer if acceptance if circumstances change. Question 2 What Claim If Any Can Be Made Against Max For The Poor Sanitation And Production Of The Beers? Jane and Max entered into a contract in which Max was to supply branded beer to her birthday party but it later emerged that the beer had been contaminated leading to sickness of some of the people who attended the party. Pursuant to the Australian Consumer Law, the liability for products with safety defects or failure to meet clients’ demands or expectation is squarely on the manufacturers and consumers may seek damages arising from the use or consumption of such products (Buzby, Frenzen and Barbara 35). However, the liability may be reconsidered if the manufacturer or the defendant can prove that the defect or safety defects did arise from the processing process or areas within the control of the manufacturer. In a case involving Samaan family (Plaintiffs) and Kentucky-based KFC, the family sought to be paid damage brain damage to a 7 year old associated with consumption of a chicken wrap contaminated with Salmonella. Upon prove that the brain damage resulted from consumption of the Salmonella contaminated chicken wrap, the court awarded the family damages amounting to US $ 8.3 million. The ruling reaffirmed the liability of production firms in ensuring safety of consumers at all costs. However, the court had to ensure that the contamination had a direct link to the company’s food preparation process or negligence on the part of the company. In this case, Jackie and Philip (Jane’s friends) could seek quantifiable damages resulting from the consumption of the food poisoning arising from the consumption of the ‘Brew U’ beer believed to have been due to poor sanitation of the beer bottles during the production process. Some of the damages that the two can seek include the costs incurred in receiving treatment in the hospital they were admitted to. The two could also apply for damages indirectly associated with consumption of the contaminated beer such as the failure to sit their exams as planned including reimbursement of the fee for the FBL exams (Garner 2). However, some of the damages such as failure to graduate and to secure their first jobs may not be easily quantified to allow the court decide on the appropriate monetary value. Nevertheless, the court could also consider, awarding punitive damages to the Plaintiff for the reckless handling of the company manufacturing process which could put many people’s lives at risk. The punitive damages are awarded in addition to the compensatory damages as cautionary to the defendants and could be in excess of the compensation. Punitive damages are awarded if the defendant is found guilty of gross negligence, which could be the case with Max. In the case, Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc v. Crane National Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587, the court awarded the plaintiff both compensatory and punitive damages but indicated that there should be sufficient evidence to show the need for more than $1million punitive damage awarded by a court (Garner 2). Work Cited List of Cases Referred to Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc v. Crane National Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653 Samaan family (Plaintiffs) v. Kentucky-based KFC Other sources Buzby, Jean, Frenzen, Paul, and Rasco, Barbara. Product Liability and Microbial Foodborne Illness. Washington, DC: DIANE Publishing, 2001. Print. Garner, Bryan. Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text with Exercises. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Print. Lambiris, Michael, and Laura Griffin. First Principles of Business Law. Sydney: CCH, 2013. Print. Read More