The question of legal binding between tony and Brenda

Scenario 1: Analysis In the first situation, Tony and Brenda were close friends, and it was a simple agreement based upon a promise. Scenario 1: Analysis In the first situation, Tony and Brenda were close friends, and it was a simple agreement based upon a promise. Rule 4: The rule used in the following situation is consideration an is stated as something that is given in return of another promise, whether in terms of money or terms of services Scenario 1: Analysis Yes, in the first scenario consideration was present

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Business Law
Answer to 1
Issue
The primary issue stated in the scenario is whether tony and Brenda were legally bound to
each other or not in the given scenarios.
Rule
The rules followed in this problem is the essentials elements of contract that requires to be
fulfilled for the legal binding.
Scenario 1: Analysis
In the first situation, Tony and Brenda were close friends, and it was a simple agreement
based upon a promise. No they were not legally bound to each other. An agreement was an
intention that makes them legally bound. The contractual obligations that agree legally
binding were missing in this case. Australian contract law is grounded upon the English
common law more than upon codified statute (Ruleoflaw.org.au,2020). The elementary
standard of Australian contract law is “freedom of contract”, under which both the parties are
at independent state to bargain.
Scenario 2: Analysis
Yes, under this scenario, Tony and Brenda were legally bound to each other. Under the given
situation, Brenda contacted Tony based on an ad that was placed by Tony in the newspaper.
For a contract to be a legal binding, it is essential to establish a proper offer and acceptance
for the legal binding. In this situation, The advertisement given by Tony was an offer, and
Brenda agreed to that offer that makes the agreement enforceable.

2Business Law
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that in the first case all the elements were not fulfilled
hence they were not legally bound to each other. Whereas in the second case there was all the
elements required to make an agreement legally bound between the parties.
Answer to 2
Issue
The primary issues of this problem states that whether there was any consideration present
between the parties or not.
Rule
The rule used in the following situation is consideration an is stated as something that is
given in return of another promise, whether in terms of money or terms of services
Scenario 1: Analysis
Yes, in the first scenario consideration was present. A consideration is stated as
something that is given in return of another promise, whether in terms of money or terms of
services. In the following case, John used to clean Dale’s swimming pool, who was his
neighbour. Seeing his work, Dale offered him money. This states that there was consideration
present in this case as there was a promise in return for an act or conduct. For example, from
the case of Beaton v McDivitt , it can be stated that it does not require consideration to be a
specific object or a thing.
Conclusion
Consideration is present as it can be considered as anything from money to a promise
that shall be enforceable in exchange or regards to a particular Act.

3Business Law
Scenario 2: Analysis
Yes, consideration is present in regards to both John and Dale. In this case, John has
borrowed some money and promised to pay the full amount on a particular date with
additional interest. That was the agreement that was decided between them. However, before
the payment, John informs that he will not be able to make the payment on the given date but
paid the half amount instead. Under this situation, Dale promises that he shall not sue her and
upon that promise, John paid the half amount. So by the rule, it is known that consideration
does not necessarily mean money. It may constitute any promise in return for the conduct of
the Act. Under the case of Foakes v Beer a part payment of a debt can also be considered as
a consideration.
Conclusion
Consideration is present in this case as part payment of a debt can be considered as a
consideration.
Scenario 3: Analysis
No, the consideration is not present in this case. As in cases of an illusory consideration,
the agreement between the parties may be declared void as the provision of the agreement is
deemed to be illusory as it either depends upon the performance of both the parties. If one
party has some freedom of choice as to the mode in which then agreed terms are initiated
then in such cases, it will be affected. Following the case of Godecke v Kirwan, any
consideration based upon illusory terms shall be considered void, and it shall not constitute
the essence of consideration. Following the facts of the case, John promised to pay dale an
amount if he agrees to maintain a friendship with him for two years. So the terms stated are
illusionary as it depends upon the freedom of choice of Dale where he wants that agreement
or not.

4Business Law
Conclusion
Hence it shall be considered as an illusory consideration. So, no consideration is present
in this case.
Scenario 4: Analysis
No, it shall be not a consideration. As per the rule of consideration, any promise in terms
of money or another promise for a performance of an act or any other act shall be stated as a
consideration. However, where it is the other party is legally bound to do his duty any amount
given upon that shall not be considered as consideration. As per the facts of the case, Dale
was a Police officer, and it was his duty to maintain the functioning of the society through his
services. In this case, it was his duty to arrest any person creating a nuisance or causing any
harm to another. So any amount given to a person for the performance of his duties that he is
legally bound for shall be stated as consideration.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that there is no consideration as it was his duty to fulfill
the job. So consideration cannot be provided in cases where it is already the duty of the party.
Scenario 5: Analysis
Yes, consideration is present in this case. As per the rule-governed under
consideration, something in return of something else can be stated as a consideration. That
may constitute an act in return for another act of money for an act by a person. When two
people agree with each other consideration is an essential element. In such cases where a
person promises to pay something or promises to do something in return of an act or any
conduct is stated as consideration. For example, in the case of Popiw v Popiw consideration
may be present in any form. Following the circumstances of the case, John proposes to pay an

5Business Law
additional amount to Dale if he agreed to provide his services on the given date.
Consideration is present from the side of John but not upon Dale.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is stated that consideration was present as something was given in
return of something.
Answer to 3
Issue
The primary issue that is seen in the situation is that whether the statement regarding the rust
free car shall be considered as a terms of the contract or as a representation.
Rule
The rule used for the problem is the law of contract and the terms essential for fulfilling the
contract.
Scenario 1: Analysis
Fyn’s statement regarding the rust shall be considered as terms of the contract in the
following situation. Moreover, it shall be considered as an express term in the contract. An
express term in a contract is any promissory statement that is in providing oral or in written
forms. The terms that are made available or are presented before the parties before the
contract is incorporated or enforced are considered as terms of the contract. It consists of any
statement made before the contract is signed between the parties in order to make the other
party enter the contract can be considered as an expressed term. In the following scenario
deciding upon the statement of Fyn, toby decided to enter into the contract upon the terms

6Business Law
that the car will be rustless. For example, in the case of Henry Kendall & Sons v William
Lillico & Sons Ltd, the incorporation of the terms of the contract was made through prior
dealings.
Conclusion
In can be stated that the statement shall be considered as a terms of the contract as
thinking upon it the decision was made to enter into the contract.
Scenario 2: Analysis
In this case, it shall constitute representation. Apart for the terms and conditions that are
stated in a contract there lies a duty upon the person to ensure that the item that is sold is
proper and provided in a way to the customer that has been stated before entering the
contract. In the following case, Fynn is a salesperson. So he must tell the specification of the
car and the appearance and features of the car before selling them to a customer. So under his
duty, he shall make the proper representations of the goods that are to be sold.
Conclusion
This can be stated as representation as he was duty bound to inform all the
specification of a the car to the buyer as he was a sales man.
Scenario 3: Analysis
It shall be considered as a term of the contract. Following the rule, it is essential that
for the terms to be enforceable, it shall be signed by the parties. These were the implied terms
that required to be fulfilled by both of the parties in order to enter the contract. It was the
necessity that required to be fulfilled, and upon the fulfilment of these terms, the party shall
enter the contract. The statement was an assurance that works as an implied term of the
contract where the party must provide the same as per stated and not under any written or oral
agreements. In this following scenario, they have written it on a sheet of paper, but it was not

7Business Law
signed. This makes it evident that the writings were implied terms that were necessary to
formulate the contract. For example, in the case of Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v
Norwich Winterthur Insurance Australia Ltd implied terms are stated.
Conclusion
Hence it can be stated that though it was not signed, but it shall be considered as a
representation.
Answer to 4
Issue
The issues that required to be considered in the following case is that whether the act by
the Guards of the Ace Security be responsible for the damage caused to Grant and whether
the security was liable for the damage.
Rule
a) The relevant rule in the following case is the breach of contract due to the negligence
by the Ace Security that caused the damage to Grant.
b) The case of Tanwar Enterprise Pty Ltd v Cauchi. It states the breach of contract due to
specific performance. In another case of Shevill v Builders Licensing Board, the
plaintiff recovered the damages from the breach of the contract.
Analysis
Yes, the grant will win in the case where they want to sue the security company. As
the damage that has been occurred to the car company was due to the negligent act of the
guard. As per the duty of the guard, the guard was responsible for looking after premises. It
was upon the duty of the guard to ensure that at the time of patrolling the premises is safe

8Business Law
from all kinds of occurrence. It was the terms upon which both the companies agreed.
Following the terms laid down between them, Ace shall not be liable for cases where the
damages have been occurred due to some negligent act of the employee unless such act could
be foreseen. Following the facts, the damages were due to lighting the cigarette by the guard
and throwing it on an area that caused the damage. It is evident that if the guard carefully
threw the light, the damage could have been saved. So it is the liability of the Ace Security as
the act could be easily avoided, and the damage could have been saved if the guard was
responsible.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the liability shall be upon the Ace Security as due
to the negligence of the guard damage occurred. This damage could be easily avoided if
proper care was taken.
Answer to 5
Issue
The issues that have been brought up in the case is whether Anya will be successful in
suing the Company for the breach of contract even though no terms were stating the
installation of the fans.
Rule
a) The legal issue is the breach of the contract due to not performance that caused
damage to the contracted party.
b) The case of McDonald v Dennys Lascelles states the discharge due to the breach of
contract that resulted due to specified installments and was the accrued rights of the

9Business Law
contracted party. Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pvt Ltd (was due to
the performance there was a breach of contract that resulted in damages.
Analysis
Yes, Anya will win in a situation where she will sue the electrical Company for the
damages that resulted out due to the improper installation. Installing the fans properly are
implied terms that states the duties of the party to fulfill the duty while performing the
contract. The parties contracting contains implied terms that state the duties of the parties to
perform the acts with due diligence and care. So even if it is not written or stated within the
terms, these conditions are implied upon the parties contracting.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that Anya will win if she sues the company as though not
mentioned it was implied that the will fulfill their work with due care and diligence. These
terms shall be considered a an implied terms that the fan company was liable to follow.

10Business Law
Reference
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance Australia Ltd
(1986)
Foakes v Beer (1884), 9 App Cas 605
Godecke v Kirwan[1973]HCA 38
Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd (1969) 2 AC 31
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pvt Ltd (1938)61 CLR
McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd (1993) 48 CLR 457
Popiw v Popiw (1959), VR 197
Ruleoflaw.org.au,2020.[online]Ruleoflaw.org.au.Availableat:<https://
www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-03-21-Contract-Law-Final-
Resource.pdf> [Accessed 19 April 2020].
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) HCA 47
Tanwar Enterprise Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003)HCA 57.