Rule The contract law of Australia deals

Running head: CASE ANALYSIS
CASE ANALYSIS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

CASE ANALYSIS1
Part- I
Issue
The issue that arises in the instant case is whether there was the existence of contractual
obligation in favor of Charlotte to pay the additional amount of $20,000 to other parties, Jonah.
Another issue involved in the scenario is whether the action undertaken by Peter discharged the
obligation.
Rule
The contract law of Australia deals with the statutory enforceability of assurance, and the
same was constructed as the portion of bargain unrestrictedly entered in creates a legitimate
relationship n between the parties termed as a contract. The common legislation in the country of
Australia rests on the inherited English law of contract with the particular legal amendment of
the principles in particular zones as well as the development of legislation by the decision of the
court in Australia. The presence of arrangements between the contractual parties is generally
examined through the principles of offer that is made by one party and acceptance that is made
by another. It is expressed as an offer that is made by the offeror is the desirability to be
enforceable by particular terms. Therefore the offer is accompanied by a statement that is made
by another party that is the offeree of the assent that is unqualified to the offer that is termed as
acceptance. Nevertheless, the regulation of offer, as well as acceptance, is the assistance to the
analysis and, in a certain situation, establish to be artificial or inconclusive. The statutory
contract can also be created without the presence of recognizable offer and also acceptance;
however, the same must be made with common assent of the parties engaged in the contract.
Therefore the five crucial elements that are necessary for the formulation of a contract that is

CASE ANALYSIS2
legally enforceable involves an agreement, consideration, capacity, intention, and certainty. The
agreement is made between the identified parties as there is no question of a unilateral contract.
Consideration in the contract is the supply of property, money, or services or any assurance to
comply with or not to have complied with a specific action in return of something that has value
in the eyes of the law. The capacity of both the parties entering in the agreement. The intention
of the parties to the agreement with the anticipation of creating a legal relationship between
them. Thus the commercial arrangement between the family members cannot designate intention
for entering the contract that is legally binding and thus is not construed to be enforceable in law.
The certainty is also regarded as the basic element for the formulation of a legally binding
contract as the same implies that the contract must be certain, complete, binding, and also
unambiguous. Thus the absence of the above-mentioned criteria does not make the agreement
legally enforceable in law. The contract is the agreement that is legally enforceable between the
two distinct parties connecting to the transaction for sale or purchase of services and goods.
Therefore the contract engages obligation on behalf of contractors, and the same is
communicated in writing or verbally. The formulation of the contract includes one distinct party
that makes the offer to others, and the same is accepted by others. For instance, one firm
proposes to supply goods to others at the specified date and on certain specified conditions. In
return of this, the latter corporation that is the other party to the contract accepted to make
payment of the particular amount in the manner of consideration for the goods proposed to be
supplied by the former company. In this manner, both parties were statutory enforceable to honor
the arrangement. Nevertheless, in the occasion of any of the parties who were engaged in the
legally binding agreement miscarries to carry out their contractual obligation, then the aggrieved
party is entitled to receive compensation for the infringement of arrangement through the

CASE ANALYSIS3
procedure of the court. The comprehensive contract in Australia made stipulation the rights and
responsibilities of each party to the contract concerning every possible contingency that may
evolve at the time of commercial transactions. Therefore the complete arrangement would
statutorily bind distinct parties tom specific action in case the deal unfolds as neither party has
the liberty to misuse the weakness of the other position. It is complicated to formulate a
comprehensive arrangement as the parties involved in the legally binding contract must capable
of indicating probable contingency in addition to that necessary obligation by the contractual
parties. In addition to that instructs, what creates satisfactory conduct that causes the
arrangement enforceable in law as well as accessibility to accurate information regarding the
circumstances that surround the contract. Thus in practice, the arrangement is incomplete where
the precise conditions cannot be completely stipulated. In such circumstances, the parties to
arrangement might take benefit of ambiguity, open-endless of arrangement at the cost of another
party. The contract is the promise that is undertaken by one individual to act or abstain from an
act in case other act or abstain from an act in exchange. The promise is enforceable in law if the
particular requisites are fulfilled. The contract law in Australia necessitates the arrangement that
is comprised of acceptance and offer, consideration, intent to construct legal relationship, act on
pursuance to the statutory formalities in addition to that the parties must have the statutory
capability to enter into the contract.
In the case of Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd vs. Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR
298, Helicopter Charter is the owner of the helicopter, and the same is placed with Hawker
Pacific for the purpose of repainting. The contract was concluded by which Helicopter Charter
approve of making payment of a sum of $5,200 for the purpose of painting the same. The owner
of the helicopter that is Helicopter Charter took the same but did not make payment of $4, 300.