Australian Commercial Law: Lease Termination, Consumer Law Breach, Contractual Restraint

This article discusses the legal provisions and case studies related to lease termination, breach of consumer law, and contractual restraint in Australian commercial law. It covers the rules and applications of these concepts and provides insights into relevant cases. The article also includes a bibliography of relevant books, articles, and reports.

0
Australian Commercial awL

1
Part C
Issue
hether a landlord can terminate the lease agreement based on the fact that the rent is notW
paid on ti me by the tenant hether the loss of bargain can be demanded by the landlord on? W
breach of an essential term by the tenant?
Rule
A lease agreement is similar to other commercial contracts thus it can be rescinded by the, ,
parties on non fulfilment of its terms here are a number of terms included in the lease- . T
agreement which parties have to comply with however the contract can be ended in case an; ,
essential term of the contract is not fulfilled A property is given on the lease by a party to.
collect the rent for such property he consi. T deration of a lease agreement is considered as
the rent paid by the parties thus it is considered as an essential term of the contract, , 1 n case. I
this term is violated by the parties then the lease agreement can be cancelled urthermore, . F ,
the aggrieved party also has the right to demand the loss of bargain in case an essential term
is breached by another party.
Application
nI Gumland Property Holdings Pty td uffy ros ruit Mar et Camp ellto n Pty tdL . V D B F k ( b w ) L
C R case a lease agreement was formed between ransit Management ty(2008) 234 L 237 T P
td ransit and Duffy ros ruit Market Campbelltown ty imited Duffy ransit gives itsL (T ) B F ( ) P L ( ). T
property under a lease to Duffy for years Duffy found it difficult to afford the rent on his own15 . ,
thus a deed was signed by both parties to give the property on a sub lease he property was, - . T
sold by ransit to umland roperty oldings ty td umland along with all the rights ofT G P H P L (G )
the lease in 20012 he sub lease agreement terminated in and the sub tenant did not. T - 2002 -
want to e tend the tenure of the lease he property was not vacated by the sub tenantx . T - ;
however it started paying only half rent for the property, .
1 Clive urner ohn rone and Roger ambleT , J T G , Concise ustralian Commercial aA L w homson Reuters(T , 2017).
2 MD awW L , Considerations hen entering into a su lease essor s recovery rights under leasesw b- - L ' MD(2018) W
aw https wmdlaw com au content considerations when entering sub lease lessors recovery rights underL < :// . . / / - - - - - - - - -
leases>.

2
umland fi led a suit against Duffy because the warning to pay the arrear rent was ignored byG
Duffy umland demanded the arrear rent with interest and the loss of bargain from Duffy Duffy. G .
claimed that the payment of rent is a term of the lease agreement and non compliance with-
such term did not give the right to umland to terminate the contract Moreover umlandG . , G
did not have the right to demand the loss of bargain he igh Court provided that the. T H
payment of rent is an essential term of the lease agreement based on which umland has theG
right to terminate the lease agreement3 urthermore the deed which was formed by the. F ,
parties to sub let the property was a part of the lease agreement therefore the party has the- ; ,
right to demand the loss of bargain.
Conclusion
ence it can be concluded that the landlord has the right to terminate the lease agreementH ,
if the rent is not paid by the party on ti me hus the lease agreement can be terminated by. T ,
umland and it can demand the arrear rent along with the loss of bargain he courtG , . T
ordered Duffy to pay to umland as a remedy for the loss suffered by the company$2,096,514 G .
3 ustin ucasJ L , Can t agree on loss of argain imply apply a congeries of provisions’ b ? S “ ” orton Rose(2013) N
ulbright http www nortonrosefulbright com knowledge publications cant agree on loss of bargainF < :// . . / / /80065/ - - - - - -
simply apply a congeries of provisions- - - - - >.

3
Part D
Issue
hether the corporation can be held liable for breaching provisions of the AustralianW
Consumer aw and fraudulent misrepresentation by making false statements regarding theirL
products?
Rule
he Australian Consumer aw provides various provisions which parties have to comply inT L
order to ensure that they did not violate any rights of customers he. T Competition and
Consumer ctA 4 provides key regulations which focus on protecting the rights of customers.
Section of the act provides that entities should not make any claims regarding their products18
or services which are misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive Section of the. 30
act imposed restrictions on entities while making statements about land or sales of land which
are misleading or deceptive or likely to do so5 urthermore the concept of fraudulent. F ,
misrepresentation provides that a person who makes a false statement to another party to
encourage such party to sign a contract is considered as a fraudulent misrepresentation he. T
party must make the statement knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly to
another party which is false and the objective of such statement is to encourage such party,
to sign a contract due to which he she suffered a loss/ 6 A contract which is formed based on.
fraudulent misrepresentation is considered as voidable he innocent party who has entered. T
into a contract based on fraudulent misrepresentation can terminate such contract or comply
with its terms.
Application
n the case ofI CCC v Gary Peer ssociates Pty tdA & A L CA a false advertisement(2005) F 404,
was posted by a real estate agent he advertisement was made for the auction of a house. T ,
and the price guide which was given by the agent showed that the house is to be sold for
ater the real estate agent issued another price guide in which the price of the$600,000. L ,
4 Competition and Consumer ctA 2010
5 Austlii, Competition and Consumer ct cheduleA 2010 – S 2 Austlii(2018) <
http classic austlii edu au au legis cth consol act caca sch html:// . . . / / / / _ / 2010265/ 2. >.
6 Clive urner ohn rone and Roger ambleT , J T G , Concise ustralian Commercial aA L w homson Reuters(T , 2017).

4
house was revised and it displayed a price of, $650,0007 he price guide also mentioned that. T
the potential buyers of this house must inspect regarding the price with the real estate agent.
he house was represented by the real estate agent on behalf of the owner he owner toldT . T
the real estate agent that the house should not be sold for less than ater the$780,000. L ,
owner of the house changed his mind and he told the real estate agent that he wanted to,
sell the house for more than $800,000.
At that ti me the market value of such house was he real estate agent displayed, $805,000. T
the wrong prices on the price guide to attracting more buyers by showing that a house worth
of is selling for around he real estate owner knew the true value of the$805,000 $650,000. T
house still he makes a false representation in the price guide he agent breached the. T
provision given under section of the Australian Consumer aw which prohibits a party30 L
from making a false representation regarding land or selling the land8 he statement was. T
misleading and deceptive towards the customers thus the agent breached section of the, , 30
act he advertisement was a fraudulent misrepresentation which was made by the real estate. T
agent to attract customers to sign a contract with the party.
Conclusion
hus the agent was held liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breaching section ofT , 30
the Australian Consumer aw based on which penalties are imposed by the court andL
customers have the right to set aside their contract he remedies include terminating the. T
contract and compensation for customers who suffered a loss.
7 oan eT L , uter limits Potential lia ilities for estate agentsO : b V(2006) LI <
https www liv asn au Mobile ome aw nstitute ournal Article ode D ode arent D:// . . . / /H /L -I -J / ?N I =38995&N P I =38990>.
8 adeJ , ustralian Competition Consumer Commission v Gary Peer ssociates Pty tdA & & A L ade(2005) J <
https jade io j a outline id:// . / /? = & =110420>.

5
Part E
Issue
hether edro can enforce the contractual term on isa to restrain her from operating herW P L
business?
Rule
he contract gives the right to its parties based on which they can enforce its terms on eachT
other to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract n case a party failed to. I
comply with the contractual terms then a suit can be fi led against such party to enforce the,
terms on party and demand damages9 Certain elements must be present in order to form a.
valid contract without which the terms cannot be enforced on the parties he fi rst term is that. T
a valid offer must be given by the party n. I Harvey v aceyF 10 case the court provided that a,
valid offer must show that the offeror has the intention to bind himself by the terms of the offer
after receiving acceptance by the offeree he acceptance must be given before the contract. T
become ineffective and it must be communicated by the parties as given in, Entorres v Miles arF
East11 case he consideration must be present in order to constitute a valid contract between. T
the parties he consideration must have a specific value in the eyes of the law and it must be. T ,
sufficient but it needs not to be adequate as provided by the court in, Chappell v estleN 12 case.
he parties must have the intention to form a legal relationship hus an agreement which isT . T ,
formed in social or domestic settings did not form a valid legal relationship between parties as
given in the case of alfour v alfourB B 13 urthermore the parties must be competent to form. F ,
a legal relationship which means that they must not be insolvent unsound mind or minor n, . I
common law the parties cannot include terms in a contract to put a restriction on parties to,
freely trade or engage in business related activities he element of restraint on trade is- . T ‘ ’
invalid since the Australian Capitalist system provided that people have the freedom to
trade as they want owever the law also provides that these terms are valid if the. H ,
restraints imposed by the party are justified here are many valid reasons for which parties put. T
9 ohn CarterJ W , Cases and materials on contract la in ustraliaw A e is e is utterworths(L x N x B , 2012).
10 C(1893) UKP 1
11 (1955) 2 QB 327
12 AC(1960) 87
13 (1919) 2 KB 571

6
restraint on trade terms in a contract which are considered as valid for e ample a party did, x ,
not want the previous owner to set up another business in the same area to compete with
him or he did not want the previous owner to take the employees or suppliers with him by,
establishing a new business14 owever the court evaluates these valid restrictions based on. H ,
ti
me and geographic factors to determine whether they are valid or not.
Application
n the given case edro has purchased the business of isa he elements of a valid contractI , P L . T
are present in this case because a valid offer and acceptance were given and the consideration
was present in the contract as well he parties have the intention to create a contractual. T
relationship and they were competent to sign a legal contract hus a valid contract has, . T ,
formed between the parties based on which they have to comply with its terms owever. H ,
isa has opened her business after one year and it is situated in Cairns ueensland which notL , , Q
close to the business of edro isa cannot steal the customers or suppliers of edro thus itP . L P , ,
is not justified to restrain her from operating her business.
Conclusion
o conclude edro cannot enforce the terms on isa since it is not justified for him to restrainT , P L
isa from operating her business which is far away from edro s businessL P ’ .
14 Clive urner ohn rone and Roger ambleT , J T G , Concise ustralian Commercial aA L w homson Reuters(T , 2017).

7
Bibliography
Articles/Books/Reports
Carter JW, Cases and materials on contract la in ustraliaw A e is e is utterworths(L x N x B , 2012).
urner C rone and amble RT , T J G , Concise ustralian Commercial aA L w homson Reuters(T ,
2017).
Cases
ACCC v ary eer Associates ty td CAG P & P L (2005) F 404
alfour v alfourB B (1919) 2 KB 571
Chappell v estleN AC(1960) 87
Entorres v Miles ar EastF (1955) 2 QB 327
Harvey v aceyF C(1893) UKP 1
Legislation
Competition and Consumer ctA 2010
Others
Austlii, Competition and Consumer ct cheduleA 2010 – S 2 Austlii(2018) <
http classic austlii edu au au legis cth consol act caca sch html:// . . . / / / / _ / 2010265/ 2. >.
adeJ , ustralian Competition Consumer Commission v Gary Peer ssociates Pty tdA & & A L (2005)
ade https jade io j a outline idJ < :// . / /? = & =110420>.
eL T, uter limits Potential lia ilities for estate agentsO : b V(2006) LI <
https www liv asn au Mobile ome aw nstitute ournal Article:// . . . / /H /L -I -J / ?
ode D ode arent DN I =38995&N P I =38990>.
ucasL J, Can t agree on loss of argain imply apply a congeries of provisions’ b ? S “ ” (2013)
orton Rose ulbrightN F <
http www nortonrosefulbright com knowledge publications cant agree on loss of:// . . / / /80065/ - - - - -
bargain simply apply a congeries of provisions- - - - - - >.

8
MD awW L , Considerations hen entering into a su lease essor s recovery rights underw b- - L '
leases MD aw https wmdlaw com au content considerations when entering sub(2018) W L < :// . . / / - - - -
lease lessors recovery rights under leases- - - - - >.