Business Law Crown Melbourne Limited
Added on 2020-04-07
6 Pages1380 Words110 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness lawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1BUSINESS LAWIssue 1.Whether the lease between GUCC and Baez can be renewed2.Whether the lease between GUCC and Baez can be terminated before time Rule In the recent case of Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (VIC) Pty Ltd &Anor [2016] HCA 26 the question before the court was to determine whether a promise whichhas not been incorporated in writing into a lease contract can be binding on the parties in term ofrenewal or not. This was a significant case in relation to the doctrine of estoppel. The court inthis case considered that whether a verbal assurance provided in an informal manner by a landlord to the tenant at the time of negotiation was enough to bind the landlord to grant an option torenew the lease for a further period. In this case the tenant had requested for a long lease duringthe time of negotiation. The renewal clause was not documented by the landlord however arepresentation was made by them that the tenant would be “looked after at renewal time”. Thecourt in this case found that there was no collateral contract between the parties as the statementcannot be understood by the application of the objective test to be a binding term of contract andwas a mere vaguely encouraging statement. The claim for estoppel was also held not be succeedas the statement was not adequate to convey to a reasonable person that a future lease would begranted without a doubt. This was because the court was not able to find that the party relied onthe representation to get into the contract. Inwards v Baker (1965) 2 QB 29 is another famous case in Australia where it was provided bythe court that even if a contract is not created between the parties the doctrine of promissory
2BUSINESS LAWestoppel can be used by the court. However there must be a significant promise made by a partyand not a merely vague statement. Giumelli v Giumelli[1999] 196 CLR 101 is a case where it had been provided by thecourt that equitable interest can be given to the aggrieved party instead of the application of thedoctrine of promissory estoppel in the ends of justice where the doctrine cannot be applied.In the case of Legione v Hateley [1982] 152 CLR 406it was provided by the court that amere statement cannot be regarded as a contractual representation if they are vague and unclear.In this case a statement provided by the secretary that “I think that’ll be alright, but I’ll have toget instructions” was interpreted by the as non-binding as the position was left undetermined tillfurther instructions was received by the secretary. Thus the claim made by the plaintiff relyingupon such statement was abolished by the court. In the case of Sargent v ASL [1974] HCA 40 it question before the court was todetermine the termination of a contract. In this case the contract between the parties had a termwhich stated that the contract can be rescinded if a specific condition in relation to contract is notfulfilled. The defendant in this case had clear knowledge that the condition had not been fulfilledbut still took the benefits of the contract in form of rent for a period of two years. The defendantthen suddenly rescinded the contract. The court ruled that the recession is not valid as the actionsof the defendant as her actions waived her right and resulted in an irrevocable affirmation of thecontract. In the case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988]HCA 7 the question before thecourt was related to promissory estoppel. In this case the defendant had not signed the lease butand kept the plaintiff under an apprehension that the deal is on and relying on such apprehension
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
TMA 01 Contract law and Tort Lawlg...
|7
|2246
|254
Misrepresentation in Contract Lawlg...
|11
|2799
|65
Contract Law 2017 | Assignmentlg...
|8
|1596
|38
Business Law Assignment - Contracts - Deskliblg...
|8
|1679
|177
Law of Estoppel: Explained with Case Studieslg...
|4
|537
|494
(PDF) Business Law Assignment : Heller & Partners Ltdlg...
|6
|1029
|76