Difference Between Law and Justice

This article explores the difference between law and justice and how they are related. It discusses the concept of law in the Australian legal system and its role in regulating human behavior. It also examines the broader term of justice and its connection to equality and fairness. The article provides examples and explanations to help readers understand the distinction between law and justice.

Business and Corporate
Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3
Question 2........................................................................................................................................3
Question 3........................................................................................................................................4
Question 4........................................................................................................................................5
Question 5........................................................................................................................................7
Question 6........................................................................................................................................8

Question 1
The law and justice are mostly misinterpreted but the two are not the same but are
correlated with one another. Justice is a broader term which is based on the equality of fairness
and rights. On the other hand, law is a regulated body which is established by the government
which is build upon the idea of justice. As per the Australian law, the law refers to all sorts of
rules and regulations which are enforced by the Australian government and the business entities.
The law varies from the one nation to another. The law establishes what the citizens, businesses
along with the governmental agencies can do or cannot do. The creation of law is long process
and once they are established and implemented then it is interpreted by the lawyers1. Justice is a
broader term as it includes discrimination, poverty, violence, injustice and slavery. Justice
supersedes all the legislation and is applicable to all irrespective of any limitation. The similarity
between the two is that both regulates the human behavior and aims at developing an equal
environment and are based upon the concept of equality and fairness. But both are a different
concept and are strictly connected.
The main difference is that law refers to the existing and factual bundle of the written
rules and regulations with the core objective of regulating the behavior of the citizens of the
country2. In contrast to it, justice is not universally recognized but is subjected to interpretation
and it basically refers to applying law without any discrimination yet there is no actual
understanding of the concept of justice. Another difference is law differs from nation to nation is
mainly imposed by the ruling party and on the other hand, justice generally remains consistent all
across the countries which is the moral values and ethics.
Question 2
Issue:
Pedro argues that he has already accepted the verbal offer of Andres and thus, Andres has
no right in respect to selling out the boat to another buyer. The issue is whether Pedro has a valid
contract.
Rule:
1 French, R. (2017). Judicial review: Populism, the rule of law, natural justice and judicial
independence. Brief. 44(9). 19.
2 McMillan, M., & Rigney, S. (2018). Race, reconciliation, and justice in Australia: From denial to
acknowledgment. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 41(4). 759-777.

The Australian contract law states that an offer is considered to be valid if it meets with
the characteristics of a valid contract. An offer refers to the expression of the willingness bound
with certain terms as stated in (Australian Woollen Mills v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR
424)3. For contract in Australia, an statement is evaluated in respect to whether it is an offer or an
invitation to offer which is mainly done by estimating the likely effect of it on the offeree. The
acceptance occurs in the situation when the person agrees to the terms and conditions of the
offer. This can be carried out either through words or conduct and in case a means is specified in
the case. As per the Australian law, it has been argued that acceptance can be shown by conduct
and mere silence is not sufficient4. In case, of no particular means is stated in the offer, then the
validity of the offer is accepted is dependent upon the situation along with the intention
exhibited by the parties to the contract. As long as, the acceptance is effectively and sufficiently
communicated to the offeror and offeree then it will be considered as a valid contract.
Application:
Based upon the rule and application of it in the given case, Andres sufficiently
communicated about the offer but the Pedros failed to communicate the acceptance on time.
Andres made an offer on which Pedros made a counter offer but in no way there was a sign of
acceptance of the final offer which accounts for an invalid contract.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that Mr. Pedros do not have a valid contract with the Andres
which has been based upon the Australian Contract law.
Question 3
Issue:
The issue is to determine the legal position of the Samuel in respect to making the
transfer of his beach house property to Lee under will.
Rule:
As per the Australian law, the legal declaration in respect to the transfer of property is
generally referred to as the will of property. In order to make the transfer look legal in the front
of legislation, there are certain legal factors to be considered. One of the essential element of a
3 Giancaspro, M. (2020). The Consideration Myth about Smart Contracts. ANU Journal of Law and
Technology. 1(1). 35-44.
4 Yin, K., Kozlina, S., Green, K., Siliquini-Cinelli, L., Laryea, E., & Spagnolo, L. (2020). Contract
Law. Cambridge University Press.

valid contract is that the parties to contract are having contractual capacity5. There are certain
classes or persons who lacks the legal capacity of entering into a contract which cannot be
enforced in the future. It includes mental disorder, minors and intoxication. A contract is
considered to be voidable in the situation when one of the party to the contract is not mentally
stable and fails to understand the meaning and the nature of the contract. And the other party is
well aware of the same. This can be referred to the case of Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR
4236 and also it is not essential that the resulting contract might not be unfair but may lack proper
understanding. Also, as per the law, the will must to signed by the testator and the signature
should be witnessed by the two people which cannot be neither beneficiary nor the spouse of the
testator. Along with that it should be free of undue influence, coercion, pressure and devious
tactics.
Application:
Upon application of the above rule, it can be said that Samuel is a 90 years old has started
becoming mentally ill due to age which has affected his legal capacity to enter into a contract of
his own. He comes under the category of mentally disorder and based upon the case reference,
the Samuel has right to prepare his will under the guidance and witness of the same in order to
avoid the situation of pressure, undue influence or threat.
Conclusion:
Thus, it can be concluded that based on the legality of the matter, Samuel can hire a third
party for the purpose of witnessing the will preparation and the signature of it. This will help in
ensuring that there was no pressure put on the Samuel while preparing of his will.
Question 4
a)
The parol evidence rule states about the extent to which the parties related to the case can
produce in the court evidence of a prior or the contemporaneous understanding with the purpose
of modifying, explaining the contract of issue. The Australian law in respect to this rule,
Australia has maintained its objective theory of contracting even after experiencing the
objections which was made clear in the statement of Lord Wilberforce in Reardon Smith Line
5 Boyle, S. (2018). Determing Capacity: How Beneficence Can Operate in an Autonomy-Focused
Legal Regime. Elder LJ. 26. 35.
6 Browne, D. (2018). Mental capacity: The tests and assessment. Precedent (Sydney, NSW).
(145). 12.

Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976]7 and approved by the HC of Australia in Codelfia (1982) 149 CLR
337, 351 as it meets with the legal system of Australia.
b)
As per the common law of Australia, the parol evidence ruling has certain exceptions. Following
are the evidence pertaining to the parol evidence of rule which are admissible:
 Defect in the preparation of the contract, for instance, illegality, misrepresentation, duress
and fraud.
 The ambiguous terms in regard to the intention of the parties in the contract.
 Issue in association with the consideration like consideration has not been paid.
 Any of the previous contract which has not been correctly reflected in the written
instrument as per the case.
 Any similar agreement in relation to it but does not make any variation in the existing
contract or if it does not contradict the contract.
 Certain condition which had to occur before the performance of the contract was made
due.
 In case, if the subsequent modification has been made in the contract.
It has the potentiality to develop inaccurate and unfair results in which the factors is separated to
the written contracts, for instance, an assurance has the ability to affect the contract as well.
Under such circumstances the exception to the parol evidence rule can be imposed8. The court
will require to make the decision whether the defendant's assurance forms the part of the
transaction or not. In the case law of Van Den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR 114, the rule
permits that the contract can be written as well as oral where the certain terms got missing from
the written contracts. The court does not disregard the rule by focusing on determining whether
the statement is a part of the issue or the contract. In the case of Ellul v Oakes [1972] 3 SASR
337, accepts the position of the law which is set out in the Anson's Law of contract.
Question 5
Issue:
7 Andrews, N. (2016). Interpretation of Written Contracts. In Arbitration and Contract Law (pp. 229-
248). Springer, Cham.
8 Liew, Y. K. (2019). The ‘Prima Facie Expectation Relief’Approach in the Australian Law of
Proprietary Estoppel. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 39(1). 183-208.

The issue pertaining to the case is that TermiFab which is a steel fabrication business
owned by Pedram having factory on lease. Just 2 months before supplying the steel frame to the
shopping centre developer, the Australian government acquires the factory site. This site
emerged as the route of the tunnel that the govt. will be starting to develop. Pedram is provided
with 4 months for leaving the premises. The issue is whether his contract to supply steel frame
can be discharged by frustration or not.
Rule:
According to the Australian Contract law, a contract is considered to be frustrated when
after the formation of the contract and without any mistake of the either party is not capable to
perform the task because of unforeseen events which has resulted into obligation which is
different from those as contemplated by the parties. It is not void ab initio but only the future
responsibilities are discharged9. Any delay can cause discharge of contract in case where the
commercial purpose is frustrated in reference to Burmic P/L v Goldview P/L [2002] QCA 479
per McPherson JA. The doctrine of frustration is applicable in a very narrow limit and in order to
succeed in the claiming, the party is required to show that the parties never agreed to the
completely different circumstances which has emerged unexpectedly10. The govt. or the court
could not have been sympathetic of the event can be easily anticipated and is provided by the
parties in the contract.
As per the common law, the situation in which the frustration is established then the
contract is discharged automatically. For example, there is a contract between A and B in which
the A agrees to hire the theater of A for one night but as a result of the terrorist attack, the theater
is completely destroyed which is before the execution of the contract. Under such circumstances,
doctrine of frustration can be applied which can be further referred with the case law of Taylor v
Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 82611.
Application:
When the above law is applied to the current case situation, it can be seen that when the
Pedram entered into a contract for supplying the steel frames to the shipping centre in Adelaide,
9 Abdullah, N. (2020). Good Faith Under Australian Contract Law. In Good Faith in Contractual
Performance in Australia(pp. 89-120). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
10 Morgan, J. (2017). Repudiatory Breach: Inability, Election and Discharge. Cambridge LJ. 76. 11.
11 Pawlowski, M., & Brown, J. P. (2018). Short-Term Lettings and Discontinuous Leases. Landlord
and Tenant Law Review. 22(2). 46-50.

it was not expected or cannot be anticipated that in future it will become impossible to carry out
or complete the project. The failure to perform the contract is not intentional as it was a sudden
situation which emerged when the Australian government purchased the site of the Pedram's
factory for building up the tunnel link system. Pedram has just 4 months to leave the factory
which created a huge problem for him. And for finding out the new site and establishing the
factory will require approximately 2 to 4 months but even after this, he will not be able to deliver
the first supply of steel frames in the given time frame. Therefore, the given situation becomes
tough for the Pedram.
Conclusion:
It can be stated from the above analysis that Pedram can discharge the contract by exercising
the doctrine of frustration. As the circumstances into which Pedram is was unexpected and is
considered as a supervening event since the event is out of the control of the parties into contract.
There is no fault of Pedram on his failure to perform the contract as the event was uncertain and
cannot be anticipated in advance and because of this reason only that makes him eligible to
discharge the contract by frustration.
Question 6
The Statutory Derivative Action section 23612, has abolished the common law exception
as stated in the Foss v Harbottle rule which states that:
“a person can bring in the proceedings on behalf of the organization or may even
intervene in the same in which company is part for undertaking the responsibility on behalf of
the organization if the person is :
 a member or a former member
 is entitled to be registered as the member of that organization
 an officer or former officer of the organization
 acting with leave granted u/s 237”.
Under the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth), the member of proprietary or the company which is
public has the ability to call a GM of the co. in case if the members with 5 per cent votes at least
that may give vote at the GM request it. The member can claim damages or the other
12 Cassim, M. F. (2018). Untangling the requirement of good faith in the derivative action in
Company Law (part 2). Obiter. 39(3). 602-614.

compensations from the co. only in the case when the person holds or held the shares of the co.
or the person has subscribed to the shares of the co. and the right to be registered in the co.
register which is maintained u/s 169.
Steps to be followed in an application for oppression by a minority shareholder is given
below.

Has a dissenting shareholder opposed a special resolution that alters the company
structure?
YES
Settled
Set
Settled
Setyled
No
Settled
Judicial remedies for unfairly prejudicial conducts,
including a court order to obtain a buyout relief
Appraisal remedy for
buyout of minority
interest’s sections
Does the minority
shareholder accept an offer
made by the company to
purchase his shares?
A dissenting shareholder must
issue a written notice to the
company requiring it to purchase
his shares
Shareholder
accepted
Shareholder
rejected
The company is under the
statutory duty to purchase
their shareholder’s prices at
a fair and reasonable prices
Shareholder accepted
Shareholder
rejected
Settled
The minority shareholder may face
costs consequences if the court
finds that he has refused to accept
an offer unreasonably.
Settled
Prices for shares referred to
Arbitration
Is the determined price greater than the provision
price nominated by the company >?