Business Law Case Assignment

BUS2010 – Business Law
Instructor: Tom Rock 1
Case Assignment #1 - ‘Charlie and Nell’
Students’ Names
Institutional Affiliation

BUS2010 – Business Law
Instructor: Tom Rock 2
Table of Contents
Question 1: Suggestions for Charlie before Entering the Contract with PHOCCI..........................3
Question 2: Standard Form Contracts..............................................................................................3
Question 3: Was there a Valid Contract between Charlie and PHOCCI?.......................................4
Question 4: Assuming there is Contract between Charlie and PHOCCI, was there Breach? What
are the Rights and Obligations of Parties when this Breach Occurs?..............................................4
Question 5: What Plaintiff must demonstrate to Court to Succeed in Action for Breach...............5
Question 6: Is there a valid Contract between Charlie and his younger Sibling?...........................5
Question 7: How the Courts would view the Promise by Nell of extra time..................................5
Question 8: How a judge would view the ‘Entire Agreement Clause’............................................6
Question 9: Suggestions for both parties in order to avoid litigation..............................................6
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................8
Articles........................................................................................................................................8
Books...........................................................................................................................................8
Cases............................................................................................................................................8
Legislation...................................................................................................................................8

BUS2010 – Business Law
Instructor: Tom Rock 3
Question 1: Suggestions for Charlie before Entering the Contract with PHOCCI
Charlie’s conversation with Nell is of much importance in responding to this question. He listens
to the representative of the company and agrees to her suggestions, going ahead to sign the
written agreement to check whether what was promised is indeed included. To begin with,
Charlie should have talked to his lawyer before signing the agreement.
In the law of contract, there are statements made by the parties; these may amount into either
terms or mere representations, also called trade puffs (Anson, Beatson, Burrows, & Cartwright,
2010). Where a conflict arises concerning the issue of written and oral terms, the written ones
prevail as was decided in the Pacific Paragon case (Paragon Energy Corp v United States, 1981).
With this knowledge, Charlie should have made sure to check all contractual documents and
examined what was written in it as terms and also what warranties he had. As it is, should he file
a suit it would be hard for him to get his claim if at all the courts are to follow the guideline in
Pacific Paragon case?
Even then, when a party has special knowledge or appears to guarantee its statements then they
amount into terms. Both these are expressly shown by Nell on behalf of PHOCCI. Charlie should
have been advised to insist that the terms discussed with Nell be incorporated into the contract
before tending his signature. If he’d done that then it would have been a condition; in which case
he would have implied rejection (Hyde v Wrench, 1840) of the written agreement presented to
him.
Question 2: Standard Form Contracts
Standard form contracts are pre-written contracts drafted by one party and offered to another to
either accept or reject. These type of contracts have not been negotiated before by the parties. An
examples is a lease agreement. It may be used in situations like these by a court to remedy a
party over an inequity, for example where a penalty clause in the contract makes it hard for a
party to fulfill its part of the agreement, as implied by various statutes (for instance the Fair
Trading Act of 1986).