Parol evidence rule 7 The exceptions to the parol evidence rule 7 Answer to the question no. 1 3 Law and justice 3 Answer to the question no. 2 4 Issue 4 Rules 6 Analysis 6 Conclusion 6 Answer to the

2 4 Issue 4 Rules 4 Analysis 4 Conclusion 5 Answer to the question no. On the contrary, some differences are found between law and justice such as law is created based on justice by the government of the country and justice is created based on the ethical norm. Conclusion of this case is whether the parties engaged in the contract to sell the boat or not Rules The rules which are related to the contract law is provided below: A contract can be made after constructing an agreement between two parties.

1
HI6027
Business and Corporate Law
Student Name:

2
Table of Contents
Answer to the question no. 1......................................................................................................3
Law and justice......................................................................................................................3
Answer to the question no. 2......................................................................................................4
Issue........................................................................................................................................4
Rules.......................................................................................................................................4
Analysis..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................5
Answer to the question no. 3......................................................................................................6
Issues......................................................................................................................................6
Rules.......................................................................................................................................6
Analysis..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................6
Answer to the question no. 4......................................................................................................7
Parol evidence rule................................................................................................................7
The exceptions to the parol evidence rule..........................................................................7
Answer to the question no. 5......................................................................................................8
Issues......................................................................................................................................8
Rules.......................................................................................................................................8
Analysis..................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................9
References................................................................................................................................10

3

4
Answer to the question no. 1
Law and justice
Law is a method through which the government of any country tries to control the behaviours
and the activities of the citizens. The process to create a law and application of the law is
different from one country to another country in the world. As the government of the country
establishes the law for the people of the country, the people of that country should maintain
the law. Conversely, justice is an abstract notion where the rights, fairness and ethics are
described based on equality. Justice is what the citizen’s ambition to live in a society.1
Law and justice have a few similarities and differences. Law and justice can be said as the
same because both of them are relating to controlling people's activities to make equality and
morality. Moreover, both of these are used and explained as a decrease in discrimination. On
the contrary, some differences are found between law and justice such as law is created
based on justice by the government of the country and justice is created based on the ethical
norm.2 Law is a combination of rules where justice is a combination of principle and value
which are created in the society.3
After discussing the above things about law and justice. It can be concluded that law and
justice are not the same things. Both terms are different because their process of creation
and implementation are not the same.
1 Ross, Alf, ‘On law and justice’ (1959) University of California Press.
2 Ornstein, Allan C, ‘Social Justice: History, Purpose and meaning’ (2017) 54 (6) Society 541–8.
3 Willis, Hugh Evander, ‘A Definition of Law’ (1926) 12 (3) Virginia Law Review. 203–14.

5
Answer to the question no. 2
Issue
This case is related to the issues of the contract. The seller of the boat sold another party
instead of Pedro. So the issue of this case is whether the parties engaged in the contract to
sell the boat or not
Rules
The rules which are related to the contract law is provided below:
1. A contract can be made after constructing an agreement between two parties.4
2. The acceptance can be understandable through the attitude of the offeree.5
3. The acceptance via electronic medium can be formed as a contract if the message of
acceptance is received by another party.6
Analysis
An analysis has been done according to the facts of the case and rules related to the contract
law. Every fact is analysed in this part.
Without acceptance from the offeree and an agreement between two parties, that will not
valid to say as a contract. In this case, Pedro didn’t accept the offer from the Andres.
Moreover, Pedro made a counteroffer which is also rejected by the Andres. So there is no
agreement between the two parties and at last, Andres didn’t accept Pedro’s counteroffer.
Secondly, the offeree has to be clear about the acceptance any vogue statement cannot be
approved for the acceptance.7 In this case, the case, Andres said erratically about the offer
and Pedro seems it as an acceptance from the Andres, which is not acceptable according to
the contract law
Lastly, the counteroffer through an electronic medium can be valid after receiving the
message. In this case, Pedro gets the voice message after selling the boat.
4 David v Baker [2015] 393 NSWSC
5 Banks v Williams [1912] NSWStRp 55, (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 382.
6 Reese Bros Plastics Ltd v Hamon-Sobelco Australia Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11,106.
7 Malhotra et al, ‘The Effects of Contracts on Interpersonal Trust’ (2002) 47 (3) Administrative
Science Quarterly 534.

6
Conclusion
According to the analysis of awards from justice, it is concluded that Pedro doesn’t have any
valid contract with Andres because of no acceptance from Andres, erratic way of
communication and late to receive the message.

7
Answer to the question no. 3
In this answer to the question, the issues and rules are presented and analysis is described
according to the IRAC method.
Issues
Samuel wants to inherit his property to Lee but previously Samuel is convinced insidiously by
his daughter and makes a will over to her. Was this transfer or a will is valid or invalid?
Rules
The rules which are related to the act of the will is given below:
1. The testator should sign the will in the appearance of more than one witnesses.8
2. The witnesses are needed to sign in the will in from of the testator.9
3. The testator has to read and understand every terms and condition of the will and
accept it in a sound mind.10
4. The testator can change the will at his intention to revoke the will.11
Analysis
In this case, Samuel is a person as a testator where Samuel wants to make his son named
lee as inherit of the property but his daughter signed the will deceptively which is illegal
actually. Moreover, it’s mandatory to sign a will in front of two or more witnesses which finds
absent here. Along with that, Samuel was weak in mind which means Samuel can’t
understand the terms and conditions of the will. After all. If Samuel wants to withdraw the will
and change the will, he can do it.
Conclusion
After conducting analysis, the will which is created in favour of Samuel’s daughter it’s not
valid according to the law because absent of minimum two witnesses and Samuel’s weak in
mentality and if Samuel wants, he can transfer the property to his son because revoking any
will depends on Samuel’s intention.
8 Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 8.
9 See Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 8.
10 Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 17.
11 Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 22 (d).

8
Answer to the question no. 4
Parol evidence rule
The rule which is used in absence of an agreement clause in the contract as the written
contract is called the parol evidence rule.12 To reduce issues and vague in the contract, the
parol evidence rule is used. The court applies this rule when any written document can be
found about the agreement of the contract.13
The exceptions to the parol evidence rule
There are some exceptions where external evidence can be accepted through overcoming
the parol evidence rule. These are such as
1. A contract with oral communication
2. A contract where the parties are agreed with a similar contract.14
3. At the time of taking help to explain the terms of the contract.15
4. To refuse the accuracy of the contact.
5. To prove the misrepresentation and fraudulent activities in the contract by any parties.
16
These exception to grant external evidence is applicable by overcoming parol evidence rule
to the jurisdiction because of part of the contract and becomes equality of the contract.
12 Shanker, ‘In defence of the sales statute of frauds and parole evidence rule: A fair price of
admission to the courts’ (1995) 100(3) Commercial Law Journal 259.
13 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170 at
191, NSW Court of Appeal Law Cite records.
14 Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64, (1919) 27 CLR 133 (24 November 1919), High
Court of Australia.
15 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, (1982)
149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982), High Court of Australia.
16 Wollner KS, ‘How to Draft and Interpret Insurance Policies’ (1999) Casualty Risk Publishing
LLC 10.

9
Answer to the question no. 5
Issues
An expected event has occurred against Pedram which makes Pedram confused about
whether the company can terminate the contract with the shopping centre developer by
frustration or not.
Rules
The rules which are related to the case and contract law are provided below:
1. In a contract, frustration can be occurred because of arising new situations without the
fault of any party and this frustrating situation can change the result of performance.17
2. A contract can be effected by the frustration when there is any possibility of an
excessive delay to perform.18
3. Any decisions from the government meddle the terms of the contract which one is
different from the contract and the contract can be terminated because of frustration.19
4. Postpone of any particular situation which is fundamental for the existence of the
contract can discharge the contract for frustration.20
5. Delay of performance which is not acceptable to the parties because of any decision of
government can be discharged by the frustration.21
6. Occurring of any activities which are different from the assumption of the parties and
those activities are radical for the contract. This contract can be discharged.22
7. If any payment has been made under the frustrated contract, the payment is needed to
return to another party.23
8. Occurring of any event for which to perform the contract is illegal for both parties to
lead to the discharge of the contract.24
17 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, (1982)
149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982), High Court of Australia.
18 Canning v Temby [1905] HCA 45, (1905) 3 CLR 419, High Court of Australia.
19 Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd [1917] UKHL 2, [1918] AC 119, House of
Lords (UK).
20 Brisbane City Council v Group Projects Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 54, (1979) 145 CLR 143, High
Court of Australia.
21 Frustrated Contracts Act(No 105) 1978 [NSW]
22 see Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
23 Frustrated Contracts Act(No 105) 1978 [NSW]
24 Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1918] UKHL 1, [1919] AC 435 at p. 452, House of
Lords (UK).

10
Analysis
In the case between Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW, a contract
can be terminated because of arising new situations without any impact from any party of the
contract. Here Pedram Company wants to supply the products but a new and instant decision
to change the factory from the government leads to interrupt the performance of Pedram
Company.
Secondly, in the case of Canning v Temby, the court has awarded that, because of any
unexpected situation, if any performance of the contract may delay excessively, the contract
can be discharged as frustration. In this case, Pedram Company has to supply the products
within 90 days but because of instant changes in the factory becomes a reason for excessive
delay.
Any trespass from the government or the law enforcement agency can be the reason for the
discharge of the contract if the terms of the contract are trespassed by them. Here, the
government has trespassed the factory of Pedram so it’s impossible for Pedram to supply the
products within time. Moreover, continuing the contract by staying in the previous location is
illegal because the government has acquired it.
Conclusion
After analysing the given case according to the frustrated contracts act 1978, a decision has
been taken for Pedram Company about the discharge of the contract. In the analysis, it is
proved that Pedrum can discharge the contract with the shopping centre developer by
frustration. There are some reasons for which the Pedram Company can discharge the
contract such as arising new and different situations from the contract, higher probability of
excessive delay to supply the products, postponed of fundamental activities of Pedram
Company and disobeying of government’s instruction to continue the contract. For those
reasons, I advise the Pedram Company to discharge the contract by frustration.
References
Articles/ Books/ Reports

11
Malhotra et al, ‘The Effects of Contracts on Interpersonal Trust’ (2002) 47 (3) Administrative
Science Quarterly 534.
Ornstein, Allan C, ‘Social Justice: History, Purpose and meaning’ (2017) 54 (6) Society 541–
8.
Ross, Alf, ‘On law and justice’ (1959) University of California Press.
Shanker, ‘In defense of the sales statute of frauds and parole evidence rule: A fair price of
admission to the courts’ (1995) 100(3) Commercial Law Journal 259.
Wollner KS, ‘How to Draft and Interpret Insurance Policies’ (1999) Casualty Risk Publishing
LLC 10.
Willis, Hugh Evander, ‘A Definition of Law’ (1926) 12 (3) Virginia Law Review. 203–14.
Cases
Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1918] UKHL 1, [1919] AC 435 at p. 452, House of
Lords (UK).
Banks v Williams [1912] NSWStRp 55, (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 382.
Brisbane City Council v Group Projects Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 54, (1979) 145 CLR 143, High
Court of Australia.
Canning v Temby [1905] HCA 45, (1905) 3 CLR 419, High Court of Australia.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, (1982)
149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982), High Court of Australia.
David v Baker [2015] 393 NSWSC
Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64, (1919) 27 CLR 133 (24 November 1919), High
Court of Australia.
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd [1917] UKHL 2, [1918] AC 119, House of
Lords (UK).
Reese Bros Plastics Ltd v Hamon-Sobelco Australia Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11,106
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170 at
191, NSW Court of Appeal Law Cite records.
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
Legislation
Frustrated Contracts Act (No 105) 1978 [NSW]

12
Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 8.
Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 17.
Wills Act 1936 (SA) s 22 (d)