The Principle of Law - Assignment Example

Name of Student) (Lecturer) (Date) Business Law Report Question 1 The principle law in the case study The legal issue in the case is whether there exists the element of agreement necessary for the formation of a binding contract between Julia and Steven in the sale of an antique mirror and comb from Julia’s antique shop. Explanation for rule(s) of law For any contract to be legally enforceable by law, it must meet the three requirements of agreement, intention and consideration (Lambiris, 2012). In the case study, the element of agreement required for the formation of a contract can be well established between the two parties. An agreement in this context means reaching a consensus on at least the important terms required for a workable transaction. As indicated before, without an agreement a contact cannot be formed. The parties to the contact must ensure that they engage in a fully complete agreement for their contact to be recognized by law (Tin technology, 2011, p.3). There is in deed a valid agreement between Julia and Steven since through an intensive discussion, they agreed on everything about their agreement. The goods (antique mirror and comb) are agreed to pay a price of $200 by Steven who sent his consent through a message before expiry of agreed time. Julia also accepted to receive the price in money from Steven. Thus, the parties agreed to buy and sell the antique mirror and comb. Also, the parties arrived at the terms in the agreement which the buyer already agreed. Just like any other sale contact, the agreement between Julia and Steven clearly indicated what was going to buy and sell (antique mirror and comb); the payable price of $200; and the transaction is considered a sale and not a lease. Important also is that an agreement may occur without expressly stated terms like in the case study. Generally, the process of reaching an agreement can be understood by analyzing the concept of offer and acceptance (Tin technology, 2011, p.3). An offer must be sufficiently complete with an assurance to give or do something, for instance in the case Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353. It can expire after a reasonable time and can be withdrawn by the offeror. Julia offered to sale her antique mirror and comb to Steven at an agreed price of $200. However, she made it clear that the offer was to expire by 10am the following day upon which it would be withdrawn in case it was not accepted. Furthermore, an acceptance must be made before the offer expires and in the same terms as in the offer. It has also to be presented in the acceptable form (Lambiris, 2012). Steven made his acceptance to the offer before the expiry time and this is acceptable by law. In the case of Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353, where the Commonwealth government offer a subsidy to companies that imported timber into Australia, the issue arose in court whether the government made a legally enforceable promise. The ruling was made in favor of the Commonwealth government following the court’s remarks that the sentiment made by the government did not amount to a legally enforceable promise. The court held that the promise could not be enforceable and yet the amount of money is not clearly stated. The court further said that the government had discretion to change the rate of subsidy. Application of rules of law For an agreement to be considered valid, both parties must agree to the terms of that agreement. Since the element of agreement is in existence in the case study, the agreement between Julia and Steven is legally enforceable. Thus it is upon the two parties to make sure that they enforce their agreement to result to a contract. The issues that emerge in the case are whether an offer and acceptance was made by both parties. The discussion between Julia and Steven resulted to Julia making an offer to sale an antique mirror and comb at a negotiated price of $200. This shows that the offer is sufficiently complete, and if it made sense to Steven to decide to buy the goods, then it is could to lead to contact if accepted. Julia promised to provide the offer to Steven if he accepted before 10am on Thursday. Steven made an acceptance to the offer before the expiry time through a message that was delivered to Julia’s answering machine message. The acceptance is valid since it was made while the offer is still in existence and in acceptable form. For this reason, Julia was not supposed to sell antique mirror and comb to another party. Drawn conclusions The agreement for the formation of a contract can be established in the case since Julia offered the terms which were accepted by Steven, Although, Julia received acceptance after the agreed time, the fact that the message of acceptance was delivered into her answering machine message before the expiry time, she was not supposed to sell out the antique mirror and comb. Thus, the agreement can be considered valid between Julia and Steven. List of references Lambiris, M. 2012 First Principles of Business Law. Sydney: CCH Australia Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353 Tin technology, 2011. Making a contract. CCH Australia Limited and Curtin Business School Question 2 The principle law in the case study The principle of law in the case study is what terms are expressly agreed by both parties in relation to the restringing of Annette’s racquets, and whether Paul’s Racquet Restringing can rely on the exclusion clause in the contract. Explanation for rule(s) of law Statements made from the time a contract is formed to the time it becomes valid can be legally binding. However, not all statements said when negotiating a contact form part of a legally enforceable contract. Such terms include puffs, opinions and representations, and are not included in a contract (Tin technology, 2011, P.2). Some terms used in a contract are more important compared to others. Nevertheless, all the terms are important for the contact. These terms are classified as conditions and warranties. Conditions describe terms provided in the contact. Conditions must be performed in the contract and any breach entitles the aggrieved party to discontinue the contract (Tin technology, 2011, P.3). On the other hand, warranties only justify claims for damages. Non-performance of a warranty does not justify terminating future performance of a contract. People interpret condition and warranty differently, and this depends more on the intention of the parties in a contract (Lambiris, 2012). Terms used in contract must be clearly and unambiguously expressed. Terms implied by fact must also be fair and reasonable to all parties in a contract. Terms form part of the contract by either agreement of due to the fact that they are put into the contact by the general law or legislation (Tin technology, 2011, P.3) An example of terms implied by legislation is the Sale of Goods Legislation (SGL). Terms may be expressly agreed to in a contract through discussion, being included in a signed contact, or referred to on a notice or a ticket (Tin technology, 2011, P.4) Thus, exclusion clauses when incorporated into a contract are generally interpreted just like other terms. However, sometimes the meaning of exclusive clause is ambiguous and is often interpreted against the interest of the favored party to the contact (Lambiris, 2012). The terms that exclude liability must be precise and clear. They should also be made aware to the other party in order to be incorporated into the agreement. The term warranty is well illustrated in the case of Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183. Bettini was contracted to perform in an event that was organized by Gye. However, Bettini happened to miss four days of rehearsals on ground of being sick. Bettini had joined the event over fifteen week period. Gye thus, wanted to terminate the contact with Bettini for missing out the rehearsals. The court ruled out that term in the case was a warranty. The argument was that the undertakings in the rehearsals did not form key component of that contract. It is only necessary to perform at many events for a long period. Furthermore, in the case of Causer v Browne (1952) VLR 1 the two parties entered into a contact for dry cleaning a dress. When Causer took her dress to Browne for dry cleaning, she was issued with a ticket that contained information indicating that Browne holds no responsibility in case the dress got lost or injury. Causer did not see the information, but her dress got stained in the process. The issue presented is whether the exclusive clause was applicable. The ticket itself cannot be used a term of the contract since the document had contractual terms. The court gave an assumption that suppose the ticket was merely a defining docket. Thus, Causer had to produce the ticket to collect the goods after they are cleaned. Application of rules of law The conditions and warranty terms of contact are interpreted differently within the Australian legislation. Annette and Paul’s Racquet Restringing agree to enter into a contact. Paul agrees to restring Annette’s 6 racquets at a cost of $180, and Annette agrees to pay the same for the service offered. The issue is whether Paul’s Racquet Restringing can rely on the exclusion clause in the contact. Annette approached Paul and discussed about the contact. Annette accepted the terms of the contract. She then misses out on the exclusion clause placed behind the counter as well as printed at the bottom of docket she was issued with by Paul. The information in the clause talks about Paul’s Racquet Restringing taking no responsibility for any losses cause to customers. This is an essential term of the contact between Annette and Paul’s Racquet Restringing. Paul’s Racquet Restringing also made an assurance to Annette that her racquets would be restrung well with quality materials. The information on the docket as an exclusive clause can be relied upon by Paul’s Racquet Restringing in the contract. It is clearly indicated that Paul’s Racquet Restringing will not take on any responsibility for losses caused by negligent workmanship by either of its employees. Drawn conclusions Conclusively, the terms of the contract between Annette and Paul’s Racquet Restringing should be warranty. This is because it only justifies a claim for damages caused by Paul’s Racquet Restringing. Also, Paul’s Racquet Restringing can rely on the exclusive clause in the contract. List of references Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183 Causer v Browne (1952) VLR 1 Lambiris, M. 2012 First Principles of Business Law. Sydney: CCH Australia Tin technology, 2011. Contents of a contact. CCH Australia Limited and Curtin Business School Part B: Short answer question As a judge in the District Court of Western Australia, when making court decisions, I would start by appreciating the powers of various courts in hearing cases. Decisions made by courts are binding within a particular court hierarchy. Although judges have no authority to make law, they do this indirectly through the decisions they arrive at in cases. Judges may or may not find the rule of law to apply when deciding cases. In such situations, as a judge, I would have various options to take, whether in a higher court or a lower court. A judge may choose to explain the law to give the new meaning. Also, they can contribute to the existing law by declaring the unwritten. Thus, for the issue of precedent, the cases have to follow the earlier cases presented in court in a similar manner. However, this happens when the court in question decided the case which is the same. The concept of Stare decisis is applicable in this scenario which is translated to mean ‘let me decision stand’. Thus, all decision made in lower courts have to follow this decision, which may be decided in higher courts at a later time. Read More