Tlaw101 Business Law Questions OZ Assignment Help

Tlaw101 Business Law Questions OZ Assignment Help

Tlaw101 Business Law Questions OZ Assignment Help

Introduction

The Assignment provides a brief detail regarding the Business Law in Australia. The focus is also given on essential elements of contract to support the case law. The Business Law deals with business contracts between the parties of the contract which helps to understand the different terms of the business law. The Remedies available in case of breach of contract in a Business contract have been examined. The terms like equitable estoppel, unconscionable conducts have also been elaborated to justify the case law in the assignment. The case laws have been clearly discussed along with the reference wherever it is required. The contents of the case laws have been answered with clarity and completeness.

Task 1

Mojo Beverage placed an advertisement in the newspaper with an offer of $100,000 to any person who catches Lord Harry. Lord Harry is a trout which they emancipated into Lake Tranquil which is the species of the fresh water fish.  The offer was published on 25th January and the following day was Australian Day, so a holiday. Thus, there was so crowd at the lake. A rumour spread near the lake that the appropriate value should have been $1000 and that the Advertiser decreased the prize money with the help of an announcement. The rumour proved to be true. Ben got to know about this, minutes before catching Lord Harry. The representative of the Advertiser clarified that the trout was detained back into the lake but was silent regarding the prize.

Mojo Beverage made an offer through an advertisement in a newspaper to the public. There was no acceptance through verbal or written means by any person. The elements which are required for a valid contract are:

Offer: A statement in which the proposer makes a proposal to the other party to enter into a contract. The proposer starts the contract with proper notice in a specific time period. The intention of the proposer must be clear.

Acceptance: The approval of the offer with the same terms and conditions is acceptance. However, if the offeree demands any changes it would be called as the counter offer. It should be specific. (McKendrick, 2014)

Mutual Consent of Parties: The consent of the parties must be mutual for having a valid contract. Consent should be clear and not be done under any force. (Poole,2016)

Consideration: It is must for any valid contract. It is basically the amount of the contract. The performance of any contract depends upon the required consideration.

Capacity to contract:The contracting parties must be capable to contract. Minor and must be of sound mind are not capable to contract.

Remedies for Breach of Contract:In case of breach of any contract, affected party is eligible to claim for damages. It depends upon the acts being performed by the parties contracting. It is the right of the affected party to claim for the damages in case of any breach of contract. (Cavusgil, et al., 2014)

Lawful object: The legality in the object is must to make it a valid to contract. It brings clarity in the performance of contract. It makes the contract effective.

Fair Intention: The contracting parties should have fair intention of entering a contract. It makes the parties binding to the contract.

Tlaw101 Business Law Questions OZ Assignment Help

1.No element of contract is present in the given case law. So, there is no contract made among the parties.

2.Ben didn’t accept the contract by any means.

3.Moreover, Mojo Beverage had the intention to create legal relations which could be understood from the newspaper advertisement.

4.In the newspaper, the value mentioned was $100,000 but afterwards it was revised to $1000. Hence, the question of consideration does not arise as there is no contractual agreement between the parties.

Task 2

A letter was received by Live Stock Brokers from Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd which was regarding the sale of sheep on June 1 and it also included the price and number of sheep for sale. 14 days were given for the reply to Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd. On June 6, Livestock Brokers sent a letter which stated whether the sale could be financed on usual terms. Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd. didn’t give any reply for the same. On June 14, Live Stock Brokers sent a fax letter which cleared that they accept the offer of June1 regarding the sale of sheep. However, Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd replied that they are late and they are about to sale the sheep whose formalities would be completed by tomorrow.(Latimer, 2012)

(a)

Basis

Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd

Live Stock Brokers

 

Rights

 

It is all up to the company to accept the counter offer made by the Live Stock Brokers.

The company has the right to accept it or not.

Live Stock Brokers have the first right to purchase the sheep. They gave the acceptance within the specified time period which was provided to them by the other party. However, the price and quantity would remain the same as mentioned in the offer by the Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd.

Liabilities

 

The company here becomes liable to accept the contract as the acceptance of the offer was provided within the specified time period.

It thus becomes the liability of the company to cancel the contract with the other party and sale the sheep to Live Stock Brokers.

To make a contract valid, it was liability of the Live Stock Brokers to accept the proposal within the time period of 14 days, which was accepted on the very last day.

Live Stock Brokers will be liable themselves for the counter offer they made for clarifying the queries, of which no reply was received.

 

1.It was an intention of both the parties to enter into the contract. The offeror made an offer to make contract stating the price and quantity of sheep along with the time period for which the offer is open. The Live Stock Brokers made a counter offer but no reply was given by the first party. But later on Live Stock Brokers accepted the contract within the reasonable by sending a fax. Fax is considered as the valid means for the acceptance. Also, Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd. replied of the acceptance given by the other party.

2.Moreover, the contract cannot be revoked by Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty Ltd as the offer is accepted within the prescribed time period by the other party. Also, the terms and conditions are yet to be provided in the written form. The conversation also has been received on fax and there is yet to have any personal communication.

3.Since, there is no written statement; the question of breach of contract does not arise among the parties. Thus, there is no breach of contract by any party.

4.Live Stock Broker has the remedy to get the sheep purchased from Dorper Sheep Sellers Pty as within the specified time period of 14 days, acceptance was made. Moreover, Live Stock Brokers could be waiting for the reply but they didn’t get the reply of the counter offer. Also, this could be reason for reply on the last day. (Carter, 2012)

(b)

Instantaneous Communication Rule

It means that when the acceptance has been given by the party of the contract, it should be received by the proposer through appropriate means and only after that, there will be a formation of contract. Basically, the moment proposer receives the communication of acceptance, it suggest that the contract is formed. It becomes the duty of the offeree to make the effective communication if he is willing to accept the contract that too within the reasonable tenure. Also, if the acceptance is made through the instantaneous way of communication during the normal working hours, it would be assumed to be accepted. However, in case of few specified circumstances, it won’t be deemed to be accepted.

In our case, the acceptance made by Live Stock Brokers was effective and valid on their part. But when it comes toDorper Sheep Sellers, they did not receive     the fax due to any transmission error. Thus, it would not be considered as contract as the acceptance is not been received by the offeror.

Livestock Brokers won’t be able to further proceed with the contract and Dorper Sheep Sellers would be eligible to sale it to the other party. Hence, it will not be considered as the breach of contract.

Task 3

Stuart made a lease agreement with Westphalia Marts Pty Ltd. with Stuart of 5 years for a Shop in the Prince Mall for rent of $1000 per week from Dec, 2010. Stuart ran his music business for around 2.5 years successfully. Due to the increased access of people towards internet in 2013, the business came down and the sale of CDs declined. Hence, in Dec, 2013, Stuart asked Westphalia Marts Pty Ltd to reduce the lease rental from $1000 per week to $700 per week by the time there is any improvement in the business. Understanding the need of time, the owner accepted his offer from Jan, 2014 to reduce rental. However, in 2014, it was decided by the company to sale the mall which includes all the shops. Therefore, it was asked by the company for payment of full amount from Jan, 2015 and also there was the demand off $300 per week for the whole year 2014 which was earlier reduced with the consent of both the parties.

The promise among the parties was supported by the amount of consideration which was now reduced to $700 per week from $1000 per week. This was done because Stuart’s business was affected as it become easy for people to access internet. (Hogg, 2011)

1.Equitable Estoppel

It is a Doctrine to prevent one party of any unfair advantage from the other party. The providing of Justice is the objective of this rule. As per this rule, the person with low authority is protected from any injury made by the person with high authority. This prevention is mandatory as the parties have different positions at trial and different while performing it. People generally take unfair advantage of their positions. The hidden material facts which exist are the essential element of the contract. Thus, Stuart should be protected from any unfair advantage.(Forsyth, 2012)

2.Unconscionable Conduct

Any conduct of the contracting party which is not reasonable on their part. The law helps to protect any Unconscionable Conduct in relation to the business transactions. Clarification is not done by the parties and uses different language which the other party does not understand. Moreover, parties don’t even give sufficient time for making signature. These types of activities should be prevented.

3.Two Periods of Detriment

Westphalia Marts Pty Ltd increased the rent from $700 per week to $1000 per week from Jan-15, which increased the amount of expenses of $300 per week and thus a loss for Stuart and his business.

Also, due to the increased access of people towards the internet, the sale of CDs was also decreased and it was affecting his business. Thus, his expenses were expanding and sales were reducing.(Schaffer et al.,2011)

Thus, as per the above explanations, it is clear that Stuart will get the benefit for breach of contract by Westphalia Marts Pty Ltd.

Conclusion:

The Assignment gives the complete understanding of the Business Law for the contracting parties. The different topics have been simplified to bring completeness in all regards in the assignment. The solutions of case law have been made keeping in mind the Australian Law of Business which affects the business law. The rights and liabilities in the case laws have clearly been explained. Appropriate measures have been taken to bring emphasis on the aspects of contract law and business law between the contracting parties. The assignment provides clarity to the Business Law along with the different case laws to give justification to the topics mentioned in the Assignment. The elaboration of different terms provides new skills in solving the different case laws before the required time.

References:

1.McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).

2.Carter, J. W. (2012). Cases and materials on contract law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths.

3.Hogg, M. (2011). Promises and Contract Law: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

4.Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G., Riesenberger, J. R., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2014). International business. Pearson Australia.

5.Forsyth, A. (2012). Workplace conflict resolution in Australia: The dominance of the public dispute resolution framework and the limited role of ADR. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(3), 476-494.

6.Poole, J. (2016). Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.

7.Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited.

8.Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., Dhooge, L. J., & Earle, B. (2011). International business law and its environment. Cengage Learning.