Explanation of Rules of the Law - Assignment Example

Name Course Tutor Date Part A question 1 Four Step Process Identifying the principle or issues of law The legal requirement or issue in this scenario is whether a valid contract was reached in the agreement between Steven and Julia. Explanation of rules of the law A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, whichthe intention of creating a legally binding obligation. A contract essentially consists of two elements An agreement; which is a promised to one party and is accepted by another. A promise contains a surety that one will or will not do something in the future. Under anobligation, the agreement becomes a contract by giving rise to a legal obligation or duty An agreement requires the meeting of minds of the two parties involved in the final agreement. Therefore, an agreement between two parties must focus on the consensus ad idem. This means that the parties agreeing must have come to an agreement about the subject matter of the agreement in the same sense and at the same time. Therefore, without consensus a idem, there can be no contract. With reference to Balfour vs Balfour (1919) 2KB 571, a man working asa civil servant in Sri Lanka relocated to England with his wife. After completing his terms of work in England, he promised his wife 30 pounds allowance per month until the day she would join him home. He wife was under jurisdiction to remain in England due to doctor’s prescription. However, things did not go well with the couple and they separated. Upon separation, the wife decided to sue the husband for the allowance. Using the case, we should therefore understand that a contract is equal to the agreement enforceable at law. Therefore, all contracts are agreementsbut not all agreements are necessarilycontracts if they are not enforceable by law. The man and his wife had a social agreement, which is not recognized by the law hence their case cannot be enforced in the court of law. Committing oneself to do or refrain from something in specific in future means that one has made an offer. Parties or people making an offer must be willing to enter into an agreement that is legally enforceable in the court of law. An offer may be made to any person or party in the world. The offer in this case must be able to be accepted and legally binding by the laws of Australia. While making an offer, we must ensure that offers are free from vagueness. This means that the offer must be unambiguous and not loose. For example, Gould vs. Gould (1970) IQ B275, Taylor Vs. Partington 1855 ALL ER128. All parties making an offer must be aware of the offer. This means that the offer must be communicated to both parties, R.V Clarke 1927. According to Australian law, a statement of price is not an offer and an offer should contain a term the noncompliance of which may be assumed to amount to acceptance. This therefore means that offers may be made through oral words, writings and by conducts. Application of the law to the fact Julia and Steven came to an agreement about the offer they had made to each other. Both parties agreed at a fee of $200 for the comb set and the mirror. In Julia and Steven case, there was a legal agreement enforceable by the court of law since Julia accepted to sell the mirror and comb set at $200 the following day. In addition to this, Steven called and left a voice mail message promising that he will purchase the good the following day. However, Julia breached the contract by offering to sell the good to another party at a higher price after having entered into a legal contract with Steven. As already discussed above, an offer can be made by a word of mouth. The terms of the offer were also accorded to law in the sense that an agreement and a promise were made by both parties. Possible Conclusion In summary, Steve is under legal obligation of presenting a case to the court of law for breach of contract by Julia. This is because all the possible requirements of making an offer were reached and promises made by Steve and Julia. However, Julia breached the contract by selling the mirror and comb set to another buyer. List of cases referred to Balfour vs Balfour (1919) 2KB 571 Gould vs. Gould (1970) IQ B275 R.V Clarke 1927 Taylor Vs. Partington 1855 ALL ER128 Question 2 Identifying the principle or issue of law The terms of the agreement in relation to the contract; whether Paul’s Racquet Restringing shop is fully responsible for Annett’s failure and whether Paul is liable for Annette’s failure The rules of law Acceptance refers to legal abilities of parties or a person to enter into a legal contractual relationship by the two parties. Every person is presumed by the Australian law to have the capacity to enter into a contract but there are some situations in which capacity is lacking or may be questionable. The law requires that neither of the party’s be allowed to benefit from the other party’s lack of contractual capacity. The law is also categorical about minors. alsoMinors are protected against their own inexperience and against the possible improper designs of those experienced. Essentials of valid contract require that an agreement exist between two or more parties. The two parties involved must be having an intention to create a legal relationship. However, if an intention is not available about the legal relationship, there can be no contract.This means that the parties responsible must be answerable to the guidelines of contracts. In the event of failure, then the failing party is answerable to failure of fulfillment of the contract. Social agreement does not contemplate a legal relationship. There is also the issue of lawful consideration. For an agreement to be enforceable by law, it must be supported by consideration. For example, an advantage, benefit moving from one party to another or something in return, or something of value received or promised, such as money, to convince a person to make a deal. Contracting requires that parties of people entering into a contract be lawfully acceptable to do so. Parties entering into the contract must have the contractual capacity to do so. For example, minors are not allowed to enter into contracts because they are inexperienced. Minors are people under age 18 years according to Australian law. People o sound mind and judgment are allowed by the majority to enter into contracts. There must be a free and genuine consent of the parties to the agreement. Consent is said to be free when they are of the same mind when they agree on the subject matter of the contract in the same sense and at the same time. Free consent requires that that force, coercion, frauds, mistakes or duress are not engaged while entering into a contract. The subject of the agreement must be lawful. For example, the object must not be illegal, immoral, or opposed to public policy. The law does not identify illegal businesses or objects in contracts. This therefore means that a contractual agreement suffering from any legal flaw, it would not be enforceable by law. The contractual agreement must be correct meaning it should not be vague or indefinite. If it is vague and it is not possible to ascertain its meaning, it will not be enforceable in the court of law. Application of the Law According to Australian law, there must be free and genuine consent of the parties involved in the contractual law. For this reason, Paul is not supposed to compensate Annette for her loss since there was a notice about acceptance of responsibilities for any defective work or defective product from Paul’s shop. The conditions of the agreement were therefore right and in accordance with law. The conditions could be enforceable in the court of law hence giving Paul an advantage over the case. Annette on the other hand should be liable for her complete failure since she did not read the notice that was legibly written in Paul’s shop Van den Esschert vs. Chappel (1960) WAR 114. . Draw Possible Conclusion According to LG Thorne & Co vs Thomas Borthwick & Sons (1955) 56SR (NSW) 81, terms of wholly written contracts are proved by reference to the written contract alone”; the parole evidence rule. In conclusion, the terms and conditions of the contractual agreement between Paul and Annette were right and enforceable in the court of law hence Annette should be fully responsible for her failure in the European competition. List of cases referred to LG Thorne & Co vs Thomas Borthwick & Sons (1955) 56SR (NSW) 81 Van den Esschert vs. Chappel (1960) WAR 114. Part B As a District court judge, I would not follow the Supreme Court of Singapore on the point of law for various reasons. For one reason, a desire to follow the Supreme Court of Singapore law will be fiduciary act undermining the power vested upon the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In addition to this, lower courts are under obligation to treat High Court dicta with theutmost respect. With reference to Farah Constructions party vs. Say-Dee Party Limited is famously known as ‘Farah’, there was a tendency of lower courts to refer to high courts dicta as potentially highly persuasive. However, the lower courts have been insisting on departing from such dicta. Despite the respectable reasons behind the dicta, I would therefore proceed and challenge their decisions in the Supreme Court of Victoria pegging my reason according to Haylen vs. New South Wales Rugby Union Ltd. According to this case, Einstein J of New South Wales Supreme Courts Stated that “ when six members of the High Court have expressed close reasons for denying a duty of care, a judge of first instance should proceed on the basis that those reasons are pervasive and binding. Even if the remarks of the High Court may in certain instances be regarded as only obiter dicta, they are not dicta to a character which it is open to a first instance judge now to refuse to apply”. Following the Supreme Court of Singapore means not following the dicta as required by the law. List of cases used Say-Dee Pty Ltd v Farah Constructions Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 309 (15 September 2005) Read More