Business Law Assignment Case Study - Doc

BUSINESS LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
PART A...........................................................................................................................................3
PART B............................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Business law are such laws which is imposed mainly on business and the employees
engaged with their business activities. Theses laws are enacted by the parliament and they are
bound on every business and the parties are bound to follow such rules. They are regulated by
applying certain policies and agreement to parties in respect of entering into the contract (Nygh,
Davies and Davies, 2017). Business laws provides a fair decisions between the parties,
employees and public which are dealing with each other so that there rights are secure and they
can enter into the agreement in fair terms and conditions. Present case study is based on contract
law which is made between the Sam and Quick Klean Dry cleaners Pty Ltd. regarding the
exclusion clause. Second case study is based on Law of Torts and Negligence which happens
with the Frank in the local ground at the time of watching the football game.
PART A
Issue: As per this case study, the issue which is found in this case is that Sam first time try the
Quick Klean Dry cleaners to dry clean his suit. Quick Kelan in return given a receipt in which it
clearly mentions all the details in agreement which they made regarding the dry clean. They
clearly present that they will take care of that suit but they will not take any responsibility during
the cleaning or stains which already exits. The assistant to communicate with Sam had clearly
notifies that these clauses is also written in the back of the tickets and it is considered to be the
biggest evidence to prove any guilt. After accepting all the condition Sam, agree to the
agreement and when he retuned or pick that suit he found that tear is engraved in the right side of
the sleeve. When Sam complained about that team the assistant clearly notified that clause which
is mentioned at the back of ticket that they are not responsible for any stains at the time of
cleaning.
Rules: As under the contract law, exclusion clause are generally inserted in the contract law as
under this clause it involves exception or exclusion to implement any condition which are
imposed in the contract. As Contract law is an agreement which is made between the parties
and both the parties are legally bound to follow the contract and their terms and condition are
also to be fulfilled (Australian contract Law, 2019). The contract law are exempted in cases
when the parties had not attained the age of majority or they are not competent to carry the
contract or of unsound mind.

Thus, under Exclusion clause various point are to be fulfilled to make it valid such as true
exclusion clause in this clause the point which are written in the contract doesn't result in breach
to any of the parties. This clause is made to present the true and fair values and the duties which
they person are also in various terms and conditions (Lindgren, Carter and Harland, 2015). Next
is related to time limitation clause as every contract is valid till it is under the time which is
decided by the parties. Thus, the parties take action within the stipulated time. Another one is
related to limitation clause, in this clause they limit the rights of parties in case of committing
loss or causing any breach to contract.
In the case of Darlington Futures Ltd V Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986], both the parties
entered into a contract on 12 June 1981 regarding providing brokerage services. They entered
into an agreement which is clearly mentioned as clause that Delco Australian wish to open an
account of traded at the discretion of the appellant company I.e. Darlington Futures Ltd. and the
answer was No (Peden, 2017). After that appellant stuck from such losses and they demand from
the respondent that they engage in some transaction regarding to tax saving which helps them to
avoid losses. In increasing the more expansion in the market, appellant suffer the losses but it sis
clearly mentioned in the clause that they cannot open account on bases of discretion. So as per
exclusion clause and the judgement given by Australia courts, the respondent is not liable to pay
any damages to appellate for losses incurred.
Applications: The contract law is relevant to this case study and as per the rules which is
discussed above clearly stipulate that there is an agreement between the parties regarding the
clauses which is clearly mentioned at the back of tickets and both the parties agree to such
activity (Tomasic, Bottomley and McQueen, 2018). As if the assistant not discussed the fact
regarding the non removal of stain during dry clean than it results in breach of contract.
Contract Law
As under contract Law, Sam enters into the agreement with the Quick Klean regarding
the dry clean of suit and after examining all the terms and condition which is imposed by one or
the parties and the other party agree it, than they enter into the agreement which is legally bound
on both the parties. Sam enters into the agreement which means that they agreed all the terms
and condition and the condition which the assistant mentioned at the time of taking that suit that
they will take care of their suit but are not responsible if any stains arises at the time of cleaning

(Lindgren, Carter and Harland, 2015). Thus, this contract cannot said to be the invalid contract as
the interests is shown by both the parties.
Exclusion Clause
Exclusion clause are the clause which is made in the contract and which clearly identifies
the rules which are excluded from the contract and the other party is not bound if any incident
happens against such case. Sam cannot file any suit against the Quick Klean as they have clearly
identifies that they are not bound to follow any such act which they have clearly mentioned in
the receipt. As it is the Sam own mistle that after knowing such facts they still enter into the
agreement with the other party (Cheung and et.al., 2016). Sam is not liable to sue any of the
party as they are bound to follow the terms and rules which are imposed on the receipt and also it
is approved by Sam to follow it.
Conclusion: From the above case study it can be concluded that Sam is not liable to sue any of
the parties as he is bound under the contract. The decision are finalised by both the parties and
the terms and condition are also be disclosed under the contract so in such cases they enter into
the valid contract and both the parties have to follow such terms till the contract is under the time
limitations.
PART B
Issue: In the case study of Frank, he is a football lover and attended various games which is held
in his local ground. One day occasionally, the football hit his stand where he is sittings and then
hit his head which bring him to push from their seat and break his arm. As Frank was the
frequent visitors in that local ground and the games are held every time.
Rules: Under the Law of Torts and Negligence, it results in arising any mistake which is to
committed under the civil liability or neglect any act which cause any injury to the other party.
There are various factors which examined under the law of torts and negligences as duty of care,
breach in duty and damages caused with such act (McDonald, 2018). It is the duty of the one
party to take care of certain activity which results in causing any damage to other party.
As under the Rules of Australian Rules Football, they have to take care of their players at
the time of playing so that they can secure their life from affecting to any injury. There are
certain norms which the viewers also have to take care at the time of watching the matches. As it
is the football grounds so it carries various risk and injuries to their life at the time of match

occurs. If the injury is committed wilfully to any viewers than the ground where the matches are
organising is liable to compensate that person on resulting in neglecting the duty of care.
As the case of Jarrod McCracken's V Melbourne Storm (2005), In this case the opponent
party who are playing in the grounds had wilfully committed such breach which results in Jarrod
to break his legs. As this accident is not normal for Jarrod as he cannot play in future with his
legs broken with that game. As in this case NRL is liable to compensate to Jarrod for the losses
incurred.
Application:
a) Frank cannot sue the local ground on account of causing any injury to him. As under the rules
of Australian Football, if any viewers watch the match they are at their own risk and no ground is
liable to compensate him from any loss suffered. As they are known of the facts that the ball can
be raised at any person and it can hit anyone at any place until the incident is committed wilfully.
As Frank not use the law which is related to torts and negligence as there is no breach in duty as
any party not affected their rights wilfully and the duty of care is also mentioned which is most
important in civil liability (Stewart and Stuhmcke, 2015). In case of Frank, every players had to
maintain their duty of care in respect of viewers at they have to play the games safely so that it
didn't hurt any person but in this case they are affected without knowing the facts that frank is
sitting on the chair to watch the game.
b) The council or the club can use the duty of care in relation to football ground against the
frank. According to Australian Rules football, it is the own duty of the people that at the time of
seeing the match anything can be happened. As it is the outdoor games which has no restricted
area to play. The ball can be reached to any place and it is the own duty of the viewers that they
know that this game is risky and bring injuries to their body they have to see that match
accordingly (Wilks and Davis, 2015). In the case of Frank he knew that any things can be
happened to him at the time of watching the match in the ground, so he cannot claim for the
compensation for the loss incurred and they have to voluntary agreed that he accepted the risk in
more clear way.
Conclusion: From the above case study it can be concluded that Frank cannot claim any
compensation to the council or club for the injuries he caused at the time of watching matches in
the local ground. As frank had to imposed their own duty of care as he is familiar with the

injuries which can be caused at the time of playing the football. If he causes arm injured it's his
own mistake as if any player commit this act wilfully then he is liable to get compensation and
also punished under the law if torts and negligence. If any damage's or breach is conducted in
any of the activity than they are imposed to compensate to other party in other cases there are not
liable to be proved in any such cases and in these matters the frank is liable for his own injuries.
CONCLUSION
According to the above case study it is concluded that Business law helps in representing
the ethics and norms which the government imposed against the business and employees and
various parties who enters into the business agreement with the other parties. Business law are
mainly imposed at the time of entering into the contract or maintain an agreement with the
parties. Various terms and condition are to be fulfilled and also civil liability are imposed against
the parties in cases of violation of contract. Civil cases in relation to law of torts and negligence
are also conducted which results in lack of duty of care, breach in any duty or damages which
arises wilfully to any other parties.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Cheung, F. Y. K. and et.al., 2016. Relationship contracting in Australia. Journal of Construction
Procurement. 11(2). p.123.
Lindgren, K. E., Carter, J. W. and Harland, D. J., 2015 Contract Law in Australia. Butterworths.
Lindgren, K. E., Carter, J. W. and Harland, D. J., 2015. Contract Law in Australia. Butterworths.
McDonald, B., 2018. Legislative intervention in the law of negligence: the common law,
statutory interpretation and tort reform in Australia. Sydney L. Rev. 27. p.443.
Nygh, P. E., Davies, M. and Davies, M., 2017. Conflict of laws in Australia. (p. 29).
Butterworths.
Peden, E., 2017. Incorporating terms of good faith in contract law in Australia. Sydney L.
Rev. 23. p.222.
Stewart, P. E. and Stuhmcke, A. G., 2015. Australian principles of tort law. The Federation
Press.]
Tomasic, R., Bottomley, S. and McQueen, R., 2018. Corporations law in Australia. Federation
Press.
Wilks, J. and Davis, R. J., 2015. Risk management for scuba diving operators on Australia's
Great Barrier Reef. Tourism Management. 21(6). pp.591-599.
Online
Australian contract Law. 2019. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/>.