logo

Business Law : Assignment (Solution)

   

Added on  2021-04-21

7 Pages1406 Words100 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENTBUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENTName of the Student Name of the UniversityAuthor Note
Business Law : Assignment (Solution)_1
1BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENTIssue:In the given set of circumstances the issues at hand to be analyzed are:1.If Richard is liable to receive damages from Shocks Are Us by virtue of negligentmisrepresentation.2.If George would be compelled to perform his unilateral promise in light of the doctrine ofestoppel.3.If there was a concluded contract that could be enforced between Richard and Tom withrespect to the 1949 Mercedes 450SEL based on the offers made between the parties.4.If there was a concluded contract between Richard and Martin with respect to the car theMartin agreed to hire based on past consideration.Law:Australia, like the United Kingdom, follows common law principles and the legal standon issues are primarily dependent on judicial pronouncements. Australian law construescontracts as valid if the following elements are present (CSU LAW504 Modules, 2018, Topic 5)-a)Agreement between the parties.b)The intention to establish legal relations.c)Consideration for both parties.Law for issue 1:In certain instances a concluded contract may be deemed void. This happens when theconsent of the parties to the agreement is defective. This may be due to fraud, misrepresentation,
Business Law : Assignment (Solution)_2
2BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENTcoercion or undue influence. Negligent misrepresentation refers to consent that is obtainedthrough falsified representation of material facts, however the representing party is unaware ofthe misrepresentation being made (McKendrick, 2014, p. 613). In such a case the contract isdeemed void and the consenting party is liable to receive damages for the misrepresentationmade as held in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Law for issue 2:In cases where a contract exists between two parties one party maybe compelled toperform a unilateral promise made to the other. This is done in cases where it may be inferredthat one party (the promisee) relied on the representations made by the other party and undertookcertain actions which warrant the performance of the promise (Gan, 2013, p. 47). This is knownas the doctrine of estoppel which was laid down in Central London Property Trust Ltd v HighTrees House Ltd [1947] KB 130. Law for issue 3:The basic principle of agreement is based on offer and acceptance. If both are valid itwould be considered an enforceable contract. In case of a valid offer, as long as the offer has notbeen revoked by certain circumstances as laid down by Byrne & Co v Tienhoven (1880) LR 5CPD 344 (revocation of offer before acceptance) or Hyde v Wrench [1840] 49 ER 132 (counteroffer by offeree) it would be considered enforceable. In case of acceptance, where the acceptancehas been communicated to the mind of the offeror before revocation of the offer and within astipulated time, it would constitute a valid acceptance.
Business Law : Assignment (Solution)_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
(PDF) Business Law Assignment : Heller & Partners Ltd
|6
|1029
|76

Negligent Misstatement Assignment
|6
|1042
|129

Contract Law: Validity of Contract and Refund Claim in Gaia v SuperNatural Case
|5
|1665
|243

Business Law Assignment Sample PDF
|6
|1360
|163

(Solution) Contract Law : Assignment
|7
|1263
|90

Contract Law: Validity of Contract and Remedies for Breach
|11
|3482
|237