Rules of Law Relevant to This Legal Principle - Assignment Example

Legal Four Steps Name Course Lecturer Date Part A Question 1 Step 1: The legal principle The case involves an offerer, Chickens Galore and claimants Brian and Christian regarding the prize Mazda CX-9, which was to follow after a promotion contract was reached at. The promotion had set terms that its customers of which Brian and Christian are one were to follow. Chicken Galore engaged its buyer into uncommon buying on that day for customers to have a chance of winning a gold car. After the customers had got the coupons, it turned out that the promotion had mistakes which were realized later due to printing errors that was beyond the performance of the restaurant. Step 2: Rules of law relevant to this legal principle A contract established an agreement made between parties which consequently fix their rights and duties. In accordance with the agreement, claims can be made to a court of law for enforcement if the contract is considered valid. However, there are various grounds that can be considered and which can be used to bar enforcement of a prevailing contract. There are various statutes that prescribe and restrict contract terms particularly where the members of the public are involved. The terms protect and ensure that public interests are guaranteed. In a contract the practice must state the terms at the time of its formation. The definite offer is accepted by offeree to demonstrate consent. The parties in contract must be defined in precision. There must also be precise specification on the payment obligations. Considerations are made on the circumstances that can terminate an agreement. Consequently, to make the agreement abiding, the parties must specify the manner in which emerging disputes would be resolved (Solan, Rosenblatt and Osherson, p.1268). Step 3: Application of the law to the facts The case demonstrates an adhesion form of contract. The restaurant as a party, which is defendant in this case drafted the contract and had a greater advantage. In adhesion contract, all the parties are not described in precision and therefore it is not possible to establish the legal parties in case there is a dispute. The customers are weaker parties and their only opportunity was to accept or reject the offer. This is applied by business as there is no specific party they contract with and the possibility of explaining all the terms and negotiate them is very much limited. However, such contract does not have to exploit the other party on the basis that they assented to it. In consideration of various underlying factors, the curt may refuse to enforce an adhesion form of contract. The most basis of refusal is that in most cases, such contract does not reveal any true meeting of parties’ minds. On the other hand, it is taken that there was no acceptance at the entire offer as the purchaser choice to bargain was limited. Considering the elements of agreement in this case, there are to an extent established depending on each party’s perspective. However, for promotional contract to be legal there is no specified promotion obligations. The restaurant provided goods which the customers paid for and consequently got the coupons. However, the restaurant did not provide any specified conditions forereaching the agreement and therefore Brain and Christain, by the virtue of having the coupons with gold cars were right. On the other hand, there is no agreement on the circumstances that could terminate the contract. However, they are made manifest once the two customers appeared with three coupons with gold cars. To their surprise, it was manifest that there was something missing in regard to the promotional contract. It was exactly known that the restaurants were offering only one gold car. When there are claims of three, such a contract would not be established and the restaurant had the right to terminate their promotional contract. This cannot hook them legally or be accounted as breach or violation of the agreement. In addition, the contract did not specify how the emerging disputes would be resolved. Since there were no such specifications, the restaurant is sorely responsible for establishing new terms for their own good and that of their customers but not on any enforcement (Vincent-Jones, p.11). Step 4. Conclusion The promotional contract was exposed to a lot of misinterpretation as the parties involved did not effectively worked together to minimize disputes. The problems arose through improper planning before a contract is concluded. The concerns of Brian and Christian cannot be awarded since there were limited terms that can further establish the legality of the contract despite the consideration of changes on the basis on typing errors. The lack of consensus and meeting of minds limited the legality of the promotion. The restaurant, as the stronger party has the ultimate right in such considerations. Question 2: Step 1: The legal issue involves: the claimant, Chickens Galore and defendant Specialty Printers based on conditions of an implied contract and resulting mutual mistake. The obligations arose from the mutual agreement and intent to promise that were not expressed in words. The terms and specifications of the contract failed to be established as the claimant expected. Specialty Printers are basing their actions on exclusion clause to defend the case and the legal proceedings that might hold them liable. Step 2: The relevant rule of law The circumstances that exist in this case exist in accordance to ordinary course in dealing and common understanding that demonstrate a sufficient intent and support an implied contract. The contract is distinguished though not predicated on basis of assent by the parties but its existence occurs regardless of assent. The implication of the mutual agreement establishes reasonable deductions from various circumstances in relation to the parties entering into contract. This effectuates their intention and regulates the possibility of harm or inequity. A contractual relationship cannot be established if the parties express doubts and divergence of thoughts. The contract then defines the duties and the duty defines and further imposes agreement upon parties. The conduct between them makes the party bound. The contract is not expressed by both parties but suggested from the circumstances and facts which indicate the mutual intention in contract. The highest level of care was expected and in particular with promotional coupons that further engaged the restaurant to contract with its customers. Step 3: Application the law to the facts Specialty Printers invited the Chicken Galore through its post in the Internet. This was enough declarations to enter into contract and negotiations as an offer. The agreement is concluded and created on acceptance of the offer through the preliminaries of negotiation through phone call. This made it legally binding after it was accepted and subjected the parties to comply with the offer terms. In this case, there are set intentions that are familiar between the parties through realization of legal consequences. The legal relations are revealed as they both understand that their agreement is enforceable by the law. Though the intention in this case is presumed and the contract does not expressly state such legal advances, the parties understood the legal consequences. However, both parties did not express any decision not to be bound legally. This was not clearly stated in a consequent contract apart from the existing clause on Specialty Printers work policy (Steele, p.234). There is a mutual mistake that existed on formation of an agreement where some facts were not established well and considered further for this special case. The subjective intention between the parities shows that there was no meeting of minds. The difference that existed in subject matter resulted to quality compromise that had significant effect on one restaurant. The contract is still binding even with the exclusion clause that alters the incentive which promoted the parties to enter into a contract. Conditions exist that the parities in a contract must perform simultaneously. Neither Specialty Printers nor chicken Galore had a duty to perform until the parties conclude on performance (Bird and Knopf, p.201). Having concluded a contract, any risk that was foreseeable was secured by the terms of the contract and in no way could Specialty Printers have escaped on those terms. The terms that are further stated by exclusion clause are the general conditions which cannot be established to special cases like a contract that is established on a long-term basis such as in this case. Furthermore, the Chicken Galore had ensured that details were rightly established and the operation mistakes would not have been shared or implicated on the client in any way. Step 4: Conclusion As there are no terms that expressed the consequent steps to be taken after a failure, Specialty Printers may not account for promotional cases outcomes. However, on the basis of implicating their mistake to an exclusion clause, it is not at all convincing that terms can be concluded on such harmful conditions. Damages may be offered if at all the chicken Galore undergoes harm that would not have occurred without the mistake of the printers. Part B: In most cases, the law as laid down by the constitution determines the extent to which every court can make definite decisions. Following this notion, every judge is independent to make a decision or a judgment without any interference from the judges in higher courts. However, in an instance where an appeal is made to higher court, the decision reached on lower court can be refuted after various considerations. Higher court in Australia is entitled to make remedies to complement the rigidity of common law. Lower courts judges repeatedly apply the logic that was applied by judges in higher court on various cases to determine the precise developments and apply them in lower courts decisions. The hierarchy of court precisely means that the courts are interdependent. The federal, family, local and county courts adopt the decisions from high court and particularly on critical issues. The law grants appeals when lower courts decisions are not satisfactory, to avoid different rulings by hierarchical courts and the conflict that might ensue, the judges can be consulted and their decision taken by lower courts. This ensures public confidence with lower courts and minimizes claims and appeals (Gray, p.12). Work Cited Bird, Robert C., and John D. Knopf. "Do Wrongful‐Discharge Laws Impair Firm Performance?." Journal of Law and Economics 52.2 (2009): 197-222. Gray, I. "Sentencing in magistrates’ and local courts in Australia." Sentencing Conference, Canberra. 2008. Solan, Lawrence M., Terri Rosenblatt, and Daniel Osherson. "False consensus bias in contract interpretation." 108 Columbia L. Rev. 1268 108 (2008): 1268. Steele, Myron T. "Freedom of Contract and Default Contractual Duties in Delaware Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies." American Business Law Journal 46.2 (2009): 221-242. Vincent-Jones, Peter. "The new public contracting: regulation, responsiveness, relationality." OUP Catalogue (2011). Read More