Limited-time offer! Save up to 50% Off | Solutions starting at $6 each  

Commercial and Corporation Law PDF

Added on - 19 Nov 2021

Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 4 of 12 pages
Commercial and Corporation Law
Author Name(s)
Institutional Affiliation(s)
Author Note
Question 1: Jason and Calum
i.For a claim of negligence, the claimant must demonstrate;
(a)A Duty: The claimant must establish that the defendant owed a duty to the
(b)Breach of the Duty: The claimant must also demonstrate that in addition
to owing a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty.
(c)Causation: The harm that the claimant suffered must be reasonably arising
from the breach of duty. They must not be too remote.
(d)Damages: The damages that the claimant seeks to recover must reasonably
arise from the breach. Again, they should not be too remote.
ii.Jason will bring the legal action against Beta Company since Calum was an agent
of Beta Company and the company was the principal. The damages that Jason
wish to recover are all direct damages hence the claim will succeed. For example,
in(Mainguard Packaging Ltd v. Hilton Haulage Ltd, 1990), the court found that
all damages arose directly from the breach made by Hilton.
iii.In recovering losses, Jason will sue for compensatory damages and punitive
damages. Compensatory damages include special damages and general damages.
Special damages will cover all economic losses such as IRD penalty, the new
accounting system and time lost in contacting suppliers, creditors and debtors, and
lost earnings. General damages will cover noneconomic damages such like
emotional distress, pain and suffering.
Question 2: Alan
Issue:Rules of revocation of contracts via electronic system.
Rule:As explained in(Latec Finance Pty Ltd v. Knight, 1969, l. 81), the general rules in contract
law is that there must be communication of offer, its acceptance or its revocation. The same rules
that apply for in the communication of offer and acceptance apply to the communication of
revocation of an offer. In(Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball Co, 1892), the law requires the offerors
or the offerees to communicate their revocation or acceptance. The rules that apply to the
communication of acceptance and revocations through email are contained in section 11 in
(Electronic Transactions Act, 2002, sec. 11). At 11(a) communication is deemed valid when the
electronic communication enters the addressee’s information system, or (b) when it comes to the
notice of the addressee.
Application:On application, the law will test whether the communication was given as in
(Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball Co, 1892). This rule is certified when Alan sent the message of
revocation to both Bertha and Clara at 2.00pm. The next step would be testing the rules as to
when the revocation is deemed to have validly reached the addressee. In this case, SEC 11 states
that the valid time is when the email reached the recipient’s communication system or when the
email came to the notice of the recipient. Therefore, revocation reached both Bertha and Clara at
2.00 pm. Any acceptance after that would be invalid.
Alan’s revocation was valid and enforceable in law.
Question 3:
(i)David and Edwina.
Issue:Whether past consideration is enforceable.
Rule:Where an act has already been executed, any subsequent or future promise to pay for the
same act would not enforceable in the law of contracts held in(Roscorla v. Thomas, 1842). On
the other hand, a promise to pay for a past service has implications to pay if both parties
contemplated that there would be paid after the service as stated in(In re Casey’s Patents, 1892).
Application:On applying the rules to the case of David and Edwina, the Court will look to see
when David provided his consideration. If the consideration came after the service, the rule in
(In re Casey’s Patents, 1892)would require that both parties should have contemplated about the
payment of $150 at the time of the formation of the agreement. In this case, the payment came to
the notice of Edwina only after she had won the case. In this case, the amount is not enforceable.
Conclusion:David cannot recover $150 since it is a past consideration.
(ii)Bruce and Joan.
Issue:Allocation of risk
Rule: The general rule is that the party that promises to provide something for a fixed
price is the one that bears the risk. In(North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co
Ltd, 1979), the threat to stop work due to price increase was interpreted as an economic duress
since the party the shipbuilders had impliedly agreed to take the risk.
Application:While Bruce was promising to offer the service, the law expected that he
impliedly agreed to take the risk of the price increase as seen in(North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v
Hyundai Construction Co Ltd, 1979). The law will therefore not enforce the increment of the
Conclusion:Joan is not obliged to pay.
Question 4:
Issue:Duty of the lessee
Rule:In hire purchase, the customer hires the goods with a promise to possess the goods
once the final payment has been made. According got(Lilleholt et al., 2009, p. 257), any lease
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document