Memorandum - ACT Aviaries Pty Ltd and Parklife Pty Ltd - Case Study Example

Law Memorandum Student inserts His/Her Name Here Lecturer Inserts Student Grade 27th September, 2011. Introduction As a legal officer in a law firm, it is important to represent the facts of a legal case and come up with suitable recommendations in undertaking the case before it is taken to a law court. In this scenario, we take a look at Dale who has filed an affidavit against one of his partners seeking for compensation. As lawyers we have to look into the affidavit before necessary actions are taken. The affidavit prepared by Dale covers on various issues and the main issue concerns sale agreements made between him acting on behalf of ACT Aviaries Pty Ltd and Parklife Pty Ltd together with its representative Eric Sully. Statement of Legal Issues Several legal issues arise from the scenario presented the circumstances involving transactions that took place between ACT Aviaries and Parklife Pty as stated in the contract agreement between the two parties. As per the agreed contract, Dale through ACT Aviaries supplied butterfly enclosures to Parklife Pty and conducted the act of setting up these actuaries. However, Parklife faced liquidity problems and was placed under voluntary administration and all this occurrences occurred before ACT Aviaries were paid for its services (Allan, 2002). Another legal issue presented by the scenario is the question of non-payment of bird cages supplied to Eric Sully of Parklife Pty. The bird cages were supplied on the 6th of May, 2011 and an oral agreement was made between the two parties. The legal issues in this scenario include the issues of breach of contract and breach of covenant. In the first case, we witness that Parklife Pty have breached a contract agreement with ACT Aviaries for not paying for services and supplies availed to the company. Breach of contract is covered in the contract agreement and therefore the affidavit filed Dale Godwin could be referred to the agreed contract (Carter, 2007). The issue of breach of covenant arises from the oral agreement made between Dale and Eric on the sale of bird cages, money obtained from the sale of the cages were to be deposited in a piggy bank and later Dale was to be paid. An addition legal issue that could arise from the situation is the question as to whether Dale has a right to claim the remaining supply of materials used in constructing butterfly aviaries. Since his remains were donated to Weston Primary school and in return Weston donated $ 1,000 to Parklife, is Dale legally right to claim the money donated. Summary The contract agreement signed between ACT Aviaries and Parklife has provisions guiding the undertaking and termination of the contract. Acting as a legal officer assisting Dale to file an affidavit at the court, we have the duty of establishing the transactions that occurred between the two parties. Understanding the whole scenario helps in the presenting relevant facts in the affidavit and extracting important aspects needed in filing a legal suit. Reviewing the contract and affidavit filed by Dale against Parklife, we are able to establish that a breach of contract occurred (Gillies, 2004). According to the agreement signed by the two parties, a breach of contract on the part of the buyer should result in a breach of contract and the seller may give notice to the buyer to this effect. The seller can then sue the buyer for breach of contract and keep any money recovered or deposit paid out. In addition to suing for damages, the buyer will terminate the contract due to lack of obligations to meet the contractual terms. The reviewing of the transactions that leads to the filing of a complaint through an affidavit shows that a breach of covenant occurred. Concerning the transaction that occurred between Dale and Eric on the sale of bird cages, Dale has a right to claim ownership of the remaining bird cages and proceeds of the sale of other bird cages. This is due to the fact that the bird cages still belonged to him as per the agreement terms (Carter, 2007). Statement of Facts Legal decisions are made based on facts and this scenario we advancing advice to the plaintiff have to establish facts necessary in advancing the plaintiff’s case. Based on the summary of the legal issues surrounding this scenario, we are to establish the two facts namely; the terms of the contract were met by Dale of ACT Actuaries but the other party to the contract did not meet the terms of the contract. The other fact is that a breach of a covenant was done, this occurred when an agreement between Dale of ACT Actuaries and Eric of Parklife. The scenario presented by these transactions is similar to the case of Parker v. Clark [1960] where the court held that contract terms had to be followed strictly and the plaintiff in this case was awarded damages to that effect (Evans, 2009). The study of the facts presented by this case show that the defendant in this case admitted to the fact that it had financial on the 3rd of June, 2011. In the law of contracts, one of the conditions for a contract to be valid is that it must have the intention to create legal relationship. The facts in this scenario show that a breach of contract occurred and that ACT Actuaries undertook all the terms of the contract (Gillies, 2004). While the necessary legal formalities are required to make a contract legal, the agreement between Dale of ACT Actuaries and Eric Sully was done orally although this was no evidence as to the terms of their agreement. The agreement is binding based on the law of contracts as witnessed by the case of Harris v. Lickerson [1875]. Discussion As it is expressed in contract terms we witness that the parties agreed to notify each other of any other arising issues through writing. On 5th June 2011, Dale notified Eric of Parklife of his intention to pick supplies he had forgotten at the Parklife butterfly park. Another fact that could be used to prepare for this case is that of if the contract allows for recovery of damages if one party fails to meet the terms of the contract (Allan, 2002). In addition, does Dale have a right to demand for money collected from the sale of the bird cages and claim the remaining bird cages. The circumstances surrounding this case are similar to the case of Boulton v. Jones [1857], whereby the court held that the defendant was made to compensate for breach of contract. Based on the facts of this situation we establish that the plaintiff has a right to sue for damage claims for breach of contract and covenant. Another issue that has to be looked into during the preparation of the case is the transaction that took place between Parklife and Weston Primary School; Parklife donated materials to the school which included $ 800 worth of materials that belonged to ACT Aviaries that remained from the butterfly aviary project. Since the contract prepared between ACT Aviaries and Parklife did not complete due to lack of fulfilment from one party (Parklife), the contract requires for a valuer to determine the cost of damages owed. Detailed Conclusion Since the plaintiff Dale feels that the agreement between his company and Parklife lead to considerable financial loss to his company then he has a right to sue to recover costs incurred. The scenario presented by the transactions undertaken by the two parties show intention for both parties to get into legal contract and therefore a breach of this contract leads to breach of the law. In summary, Parklife’s inaction to compensate or pay Dale of ACT Aviaries show that they did not act in good faith and due to its actions, the plaintiff has a right to sue for damages (Evans, 2009). The affidavit prepared by Dale of ACT Aviaries states all the facts that existed in the transactions that took place between ACT Aviaries and Parklife Pty. An affidavit is important in soliciting statements of parties involved in an agreement, in the case of the contract; the affidavit should the parties to be enjoined in the case and legal recourse undertaken. Dale acting as a plaintiff has the right to claim for damages and this includes any monies sourced from services offered by his company to Parklife (Carter, 2007). Other than the written contract, Dale has the responsibility of claiming for damages that resulted in the breach of covenant between him and Eric Sully of Parklife. In this scenario, Dale has the right to claim all proceeds from the sale of his bird cages and according to the agreement all the bird cages belong to him. Recommendation Several recommendations can be arrived at from the facts and conclusions of the state of affairs. One of the recommendations that our firm would put to the plaintiff is to prepare a case against Parklife. Parklife breached a contract it had with ACT Aviaries and it did not take precautionary measures to mitigate the breach of contract. In coming up with a remedy for the problems the plaintiff decided to file an affidavit to declare transactions that lead to the formation of a contract (Evans, 2009). Another recommendation to be made to the plaintiff as a legal officer representing him would be to make an agreement to sue Parklife for compensation. Dale should take action of removing all his butterfly aviaries due to non-completion of the contract since the contract gives him powers to do so. Another recommendation that could be made to Dale is to demand for $ 1,000 given to Parklife since his company owed Parklife for services delivered and his supplies that were donated to Weston Primary School. In addition Dale has the right to claim all the remaining bird cages that were not sold by Eric Sully since according to their agreement the cages still belong to him (Allan, 2002). Dale could also claim damages for lack of remission of proceeds obtained from the sale of the bird cages. The best recommendation to make in this situation would be to make affidavit that suggests a wide choice of settling the problems faced in the drafted contract. In this case seeking for arbitration would be very important in settling the problems experienced in the contract. References Allan, D. & Hiscock, M. (2002). Law of contract in Australia. Sydney: CCH Australia Carter, J. Peden, E. & Tolhurst, G. (2007). Cases and Materials on Contract Law in Australia. Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths. Evans, D. (2009). Contracts in Australia. Los Angeles, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Gillies, P. (2004). Concise contract law. Canberra: Federation Press. Read More