Markus Karkharoff and Clients of Luiggis Shipping and Imelda Chow - Essay Example

Business law Name: Subject: Date: Introduction The case of clients who come to seek advice about different issues arising from business activities undertaken by the client will be covered exclusively in this essay. They will be provided with ways of seeking justice, as far as legal business activities are concerned, in a tribunal. For the case of contracts, they have to be fully legal and contain relevant evidence for the existence of the contract. As in the case of Markus Karkharoff and both clients Luiggi’s shipping and Imelda Chow, there is an evidence of a contract signed by both parties. This gives it a legal capacity under any business tribunal in Australia according to Cartwright, (2014). The two parties involved in the contract are in a position to sue either part in case there is a misunderstanding. In this case, Markus can be able to sue either client if there will be a breach of contract. Also, the two clients can sue Markus if there is a breach of contract according to the business law of contract. The property that Markus is disposing of is assumed to be an offer by either of the clients Luiggi’s shipping or Imelda Chow. An offer is a form of promise/proposal either verbal or written as long as it is legal it makes it binding on the two parties involved in the contract. The promise to deliver something that is either being tangible or intangible is treated as a contract between the parties involved According to Miceli, (1997). In our first case1, Markus has decided to sell two of his properties that happen to be inherited ships from his father. The Maskova and the Leningrad are the ships that Markus has decided to sell so as to raise capital due to poor expenditure that the company that belonged to his father has undergone in his reign. The first ship (the Maskova) is sold to Luiggi’s shipping company. Both parties agreed on the price of $ 15 million, and the contract was signed by Markus and Luiggi’s shipping representative. This is a legal contract according to Schaffer (2014); a contract is considered legal when the two parties involved come to an agreement as to the essential constitutive elements of the contract. Markus entered into an agreement with this company. They will be able to fulfill their obligation when Markus will deliver the Maskova to Luiggi’s shipping company. This event does not happen since the ship had caught fire and suffered irreplaceable damage before sinking. The occurrence of this event will mean that the Maskova will not be delivered to the Luiggi’s shipping company2. According to the business law of contract, as explained by O'Sullivan, et al (2014), a contract is breached when the defendant does not deliver the promise or offer that he/she gave to the client. Considering this claim, the shipping company has a legal ground to demand the compensation for the item that was in the contract and was not delivered to the company. On this ground, a business Tribunal will consider the defendant guilty of breaching contract. Markus is considered guilty and will be liable for not delivering the obligation as per the contract demands. However, the defendant being Markus will also be responsible for breaching the law of contract under conduct. Conduct is defined as acceptable statements either positive or negative also statements of facts, silence and broken vows are the part conduct of a client or a company. In this case, Markus does not tell the client that the ship was not there in the first place. Although he was not aware of the events that occurred, there is no place that he was seen checking whether the ship was in existence or good condition so as to receive payment for the ship. In this case, silence is considered as misleading and deceptive act since the information about the ship should have been provided to the Luiggi’s shipping company. This would have led to cancellation of a contract by both parties and could have avoided inconveniences caused to the company. Markus will be liable for this offence under the court of law in Australia. This incident displays misleading service that is unacceptable in a legal business environment. The defendant can be sued under the provision of the clause that states that silence, when considered as a misleading act of the parties involved in a dispute, is an offence to the other party. In the second case, Markus sold the second ship to an individual known as Imelda Chow. They both agreed a price of $ 20 million and signed the contract. According to Guzman (2002), a contract is concluded when one party pay or give the other a certain amount of money or exchangeable objects of property. The reason behind the purchase if that property was because the client, which, in this case, is Imelda Chow, thought that the ship she was being offered the red-hulled vessel she saw in Perth. This was not the case since she was offered a blue-hulled vessel by the name Leningrad. Imelda Chow later realized that the ship she had bought was worth $ 10 million as per the insurance assessors. Leningrad was in a more deteriorated condition; it was not the ship she thought to have seen before. For this case, Imelda chow can decide to sue Markus on the grounds of misconduct and breach of contract. Under the court of law, Markus can argue that he delivered the ship that its value was agreed upon by both parties. In accordance to Lewis, (2014), breach of contract occurs when the receiving party does not fulfill what was agreed in the contract. As per the contract, Markus will not be found guilty of this offence since he fulfilled the obligation of the contract. Although Imelda Chow does not get the ship that she expected, she does not have any grounds for holding the defendant guilty of non-performance. The defendant provided the client with the agreed property. The only ground that can be accepted is when the client claimed that the defendant took advantage of her ignorance about the ship that she was to be sold to her. This will be a valid ground against the defendant since the he knew the value of the Leningrad but he did not inform the client. This is misconduct as per the business law of contract under the conduct of the parties involved. The client can demand refunding from the defendant on the ground that the defendant silenced over the fact that the ship he was selling to the client was a blue-hulled vessel. Markus can challenge both cases since he is not directly linked to the breach of contract for both of his clients. In the first case, he can claim that the information about the fire breakout in the Maskova had not reached him. This will provide him with a way out since it is evident that he did not know about the fire breakout and sinking of the ship prior to signing the contract. According to the law of contract, the contract will be considered null and void since the property in question was not considered by both parties if it was in good condition before signing the contract. This will lay all the obligations to the client for not considering the condition of the property the company was going to purchase. For the second case, the client should not blame the defendant for selling her a ship that was not of that value. There was room for negotiation of the contract as provided by the business law of contract. The defendant will pledge not guilty of the offence of being silent about the condition of the property. This will be supported by the fact that the client did not seek clarification about what she thought about the ship. In conclusion, the defendant being Markus will be expecting complaints from the client. The first client Luiggi’s shipping company did not request for the physical presence of the ship to allow negotiation and signing of the contract that the ship was is the condition that they were able to agree on. If the Luiggi;s shipping company decides to sue the Markus they will not be able to provide sufficient grounds to make the defendant guilty of the offences mentioned above. They are the ones in fault for not requesting Markus to show them the ship they were going to purchase3. Lastly, the second client Imelda Chow was not in a position to substantiate the fact that she was purchasing the right ship or she was not. The client did not consider the condition of the ship that she was purchasing. She thought that the ship she once saw in Perth was the same with the one she was being offered by Markus. This will not give her the capacity to legal ground to demand compensation from the defendant. Bibliography Guzman, A. T. (2002). A compliance-based theory of international law. California Law Review, 1823-1887. Miceli, T. J. (1997). Economics of the law: Torts, contracts, property, litigation. OUP Catalogue. Cartwright, J. (2014). Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. A&C Black.. Lewis, B. (2014). Jersey Law Review| Guernsey law of tort and contract: De principiis. O'Sullivan, Janet, and Jonathan Hilliard. The law of contract. Oxford University Press, 2014. Read More