Introduction to Business Law

This article discusses various aspects of business law, including restraint of trade, promissory estoppel, and unilateral contracts. It provides a detailed analysis of relevant cases and their application to real-life scenarios.

Running head: INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
Introduction to Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
The scenario of this matter is regarding hiring Marco instead of Jane by Fran
Rule
A contract is an agreement that is formed between two or more parties according to
the Contract Law. Therefore, the parties must form the contract by having a legal intention or
purpose. The legal intention is generally referred to as the concept of consideration. The aim
of consideration is to provide evidence for the parties forming the contract. Dunton v
Dunton (1892) 18 VLR 114 stated that when there is no legal intention, a contract will not be
considered to be valid1. However, when a promise is formed, the promissory and the
promisee must agree upon the remuneration while implementing the promise. Thus, it can be
observed that the intention of the parties must be legally bound. To judge whether a contract
is valid or invalid, the presence of consideration will make the decision. The High Court of
Australia had held a decision that the parties who are associated with the contract stating that
parties are not always bound legally. Therefore, depending on the intention, the contract will
declared to be either valid or invalid.
Application
The facts of the case stated that a contract was formed between Marco and Fran. Both
Fran and Marco agreed upon the agreement or the contract on the terms and conditions. From
this case study, it was observed that both the parties had proper and valid intention for
forming legal relations. Fran could not avoid the contract on highest priority since the other
1 Dunton v Dunton (1892) 18 VLR 114

2INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
person included in the contract was Marco, his brother. The law defined that the Court does
generally not treat every kind of assumptions and presumptions while determining the intent
to form create legal relations. Therefore, the contract that was formed between Marco and
Fran had the presence of legal intentions.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded stating that both Fran and Marco entered into a valid
contract and hence the contract cannot be ignored by Fran.
Question 2
Issue
The identified issue of this situation is if the section of promissory estoppel can be
applied in the case study of Octavia and Fran.
Rule
There are various kinds of estoppels that can be classified under the Common Law.
The theory of promissory estoppel defines a situation when one of the parties can remove a
promise, which was made to another party if the latter party had focused on that particular
promise. A promise or a contract is said to be enforceable, when a contract is formed without
consideration. Strict request arises when a contractual relationship is formed between the
promisor and the promissee. Usually promissory estoppel is applicable in certain
circumstances when the promissee suffers from a demerit by believing on the promise made
by the promisor. Therefore, as per the contract law, promissory estoppel produces certain
conditions where one of the parties can change the position by acting with unreasonable
promise as observed in the case of Central London Property v High Trees [1947]2.
2 Central London Property v High Trees [1947] KB 130; [1956] 1 All ER 256; 62 TLR 557; [1947] LJR 77; 175
LT 333.

3INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
Application
Fran had promised Octavia that he would put the warehouse on rent by Fran in this
given situation. Octavia had informed Fran that she needed to install a fan in the kitchen. This
was required as she wanted a tenant before moving interstate. However, the want of Octavia
was not fulfilled as it was said earlier. Therefore, due to such circumstances, Octavia installed
a fan in the kitchen and thereafter Fran wanted to withdraw the promise. Thus, it can be said
that a contractual relationship was formed between the Fran and Octavia. Octavia will have
the right to implement the principle of promissory estoppel. Hence, it can be stated that Law
of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in this specific situation.
Conclusion
In this scenario, the conclusion states that promissory estoppel cannot be applied in
this situation.
Question 3
Issue
The issue that is related to this scenario is whether Fran will enforce the clause of
restraint of Trade.
Rule
The Common Law governs the restricted the clauses as per the Consumer and
Competition Act. Restraint of trade refers to a situation where one of the parties can prohibit
the other party with the help of the latter party for executing the business along with the other

4INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
existing parties especially the ones who are not associated with the contract of employment.
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher described the concept of restraint of trade. It can
be noticed in the Consumer and Competition Act that it can be made restricted within the
concept of the restraint of trade3. The exceptions that exist are that it engages the interest of
the public. The best interest of the parties includes the clauses of interest. Therefore, the
Consumer and Competition Act of Australia covers the spheres of the clauses.
Application
The employment contract that was created by Fran and Dante as per the facts of the
case. The contract or agreement formed between Dante and Fran, it had the clause of
restraint. These clauses restricted him from forming a kind of business in the same area where
Fran had his shop. He was also not allowed to produce the supplies to Fran’s customers.
However, being an apprentice and completing his apprentice for a span of six months he quit
his job. After quitting his job, he started the process of supplying chocolates to Fran’s
customers. Therefore, it can be stated that the contract that was formed or created between
Fran and Dante was breached as he was the employer. Therefore, restraint of trade clause can
be executed by Fran on Dante.
Conclusion
The conclusion states that the restraint of trade by Fran can be enforced for Dante.
Question 4
Issue
The issue of this case is whether Arjun will be bound to get the supply of chocolates
for a month.
3 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

5INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
Rule
The case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth stated that an
offer is usually produced to plenty of individuals and to a solo person as well4. In this matter,
an unilateral contract was formed where the plaintiff accepted and agreed with the clauses
and terms of the contract. As per the terms of the case the plaintiff was suppose to receive a
reward in an advertisement that is engaged with the case. However, he was suppose to get the
award.
Application
As per the facts of the case, this law can be applied where it was noticed that it was
produced on the front window of the shop of Fran. The purpose of this situation is that a
person will be capable to recommend any kind of intern in the business. Therefore, the
apprentice will be entitled to get free supply of chocolates. Arjun had visited the shop and he
wanted his neighbor to be the intern. Therefore, the offer that was provided in this scenario
stated that there was a contract of unilateral. Hence, it was offered to huge number of
persons. Atlast, Arjun did not fail in carrying out the offers that were stated and the terms that
were mentioned. Therefore, he was entitled to get the award that he deserves.
Conclusion
Lastly, it can be concluded saying that Arjun will receive the supply of free
chocolates for a span for one month.
4 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954) 92 CLR 424

6INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954) 92
CLR 424
Central London Property v High Trees [1947] KB 130; [1956] 1 All ER 256; 62 TLR 557;
[1947] LJR 77; 175 LT 333.
Dunton v Dunton (1892) 18 VLR 114
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher