Case Study on Contract Law
Added on 2021-04-21
6 Pages974 Words182 Views
|
|
|
Running head: CONTRACT LAWContract Law Name of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1CONTRACT LAWCase study 1IssueThe identified issue in relation to the case study is that whether the decision of the HighCourt or its own decision would be binding upon Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal.RuleAccording to the doctrine of precedent a Lower court is bound by the decision which hasbeen provided by a Higher Court having similar facts. The judges do not have the right to deviatefrom a decision which has been provided by the Higher Court. For instance a decision which hasbeen made by the high court would be binding upon the decision of the judges of the supremecourt of any state as per Parker v the Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610. On the other hand the decision which has been made at the same level of court is notbinding upon the Court. The decision is merely persuasive in nature. This means that the judgesat same level may only be persuaded by the decisions of each other made in relation to similarfacts. For instance a decision which has been made by the High Court is only persuasive to thejudges of the high court and not binding upon it. ApplicationFrom the above discussed rule it is clear that the decision which has been provided by theHigh Court would be applicable in Bryson's case because the Victorian Supreme Court of appealis at a lower level than the High Court. The decision of the high court is binding upon the judgesof the supreme court of appeal. In the same way the decision of the VSCA would not be bindingupon the judges in the Bryson’s case as it is at the same.
2CONTRACT LAWConclusionThe decision of the high court would be applicable.Case study 2IssueWhether a valid contract has been formed between Nico and James based on theprovisions of revocation of offer and acceptance. RuleIn the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 it has been ruled by the courtthat revocation of the offer have to actually reach the party before the letter of acceptance hasbeen posted or the offer has been accepted in order to be effective. Merely posting the revocationwould not make it effective. According to the principles of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 an acceptance issaid to be made by the use of post when the acceptor has sent the letter of acceptance. Even if theletter does not reach the intended person the acceptance is said to be made. In case of email acceptance is made when the Email reaches the mailbox of the intendedperson as per Vantage Systems Pty Ltd v Priolo Corporation Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 21ApplicationIn the given situation an offer had been made by James to Nico for organising a party for50 people at $4,000. However James sent a letter of revocation on 7th November to Nico. Theletter was received by Nico on 9 November and before that he had sent a letter of acceptance to
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents