Contract Law and Australian Consumer Law

This document discusses Contract Law and Australian Consumer Law. It covers topics such as the elements of a valid contract, the Electronic Transaction Act of 2001, and relevant case laws. It also discusses the remedies available under the Australian Consumer Law.

Running head: CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Part A
Answer 1
In the Australian nation, every state of the country has a Supreme Court. Queensland, one
of the states of the nation, also has one. Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) was a case, the
decision of which, was given by the Supreme Court of the above-mentioned state. Just like the
other summit Supreme Courts of the other states this Court also command the two types of
jurisdictions, the appellate jurisdiction and the original jurisdiction. Both, civil and criminal
cases, take place in this Court. The civil cases relate to monetary issues exceeding the value of
750000 dollars. The criminal cases include any issues that can be related to the Corporations Act
of the year of 2001. Other related criminal issues concern murder in addition to the above-
mentioned Act. Cases are heard in this Court that come from Appellate courts.
Answer 2
According to the facts and the circumstances of the given case it can be considered that
this case is concerned with issues that relates to civil matters. An issue regarding contract law is
scrutinized by the Court in the case. An issue relating to offer and the acceptance that was done
regarding the offer was heard in this Court. The agreement was made through electronic media,
that is, e-mail. The accountabilities in relation to the agreement was explained by the Court in the
case.
Adele La Forrest, who’s other name is Adele Morrow, is considered to be the appellant in
the above-mentioned case. The issue of burden of proof concerns Mrs. Morrow. in the current
case.

2CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Answer 3
The issue related to the contract law are raised in the case in relation to the Electronic
Transaction Act of the year 2001. Section eight, specifically the sub-section one of it, and the
section four of the Electronic Transaction Act, that is in relation to any agreement, the
acceptance and the offer, which may have been done with the assist of any electronic media. In
the given case, the acceptance of Mrs. Morrow that was made with the assist of an e-mail is the
main issue. Whether such acceptance raises any responsibilities on her part is the primary
question in the case.
Answer 4
The elements that makes a contract are discussed in the given case. The elements of a
valid contract as per Australian nation law are discussed underneath:-
 The Parties’ Intention: When there is an intention present in the case of the parties to the
contract, it forms a lawfully binding agreement or a proper contract.
 Offer made and Accepted: There should be certainty in relation to the offer and this
certain offer must be accepted. The acknowledgement of the offer must be done by a
party and when the party accepts such offer, it must be done in clear and a well-timed
manner.
 The Consideration: The concept of consideration regarding a contract is not in every
situation any amount of money or just cash. A consideration may be received by a party
in any form, whether monetary or not and whether tangible or not.
Parties in a particular contract can enter into any agreement only when they have the capacity
to do so. A contract that is made, must in every situation, be made in a by adhering to the legal

3CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
principles and the laws of contract, and the parties should not confer to anything illegal in
relation to the contract.
Answer 5
The actual issue in the case of Bushwall Properties Ltd v Vortex Properties Ltd [1976] 1
WLR 591 (a case mentioned in the Ford case), was whether the agreement in relation to the
Bushwall case had a sufficient amount of certainty that would make it enforceable. In the
Bushwall case it was held that the agreement was actually void and hence, not certain. It was a
failure on the part of the parties regarding the specification of particular apparatus which shall
assist in the calculation of ‘proportionate’ portion of the land, which should have been released
after the installments were duly paid. Therefore, the entire agreement was failure because it was
completely uncertain. This case was followed in the Ford case.
Answer 6
The Supreme Court of the state, Queensland, in the provided case, gave the decisions in
relation to the issue regarding the acceptance of the forwarded offer with the assist of an
electronic media, e-mail to be specific. The Court based the decision that was forwarded, as per
certain sections of the Electronic Transactions Act of the year 2001. Section eight, the sub-
section one of section eight to specify, mentions that if an electronic media is utilized to give
effect to a valid contract, then the validity of such contract cannot be ignored based on the idea
that it was formed with the assist of a media of electronic nature. The concept or idea as stated by
the aforementioned provisions was made applicable by the Court in the given case. It was held
that the agreement made with the assist of a media of electronic nature, that is, e-mail, shall give
rise to contractual commitments in relation to both the parties of the contract and the elements of
obligatory contract is fulfilled in the case. In the given case, Mrs. Morrow mentioned the words

4CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
‘prepares to accept’ in the acceptance that she made with the assist of mail. Such words fortifies
the fact that the response could not be considered as only an intention, instead, it shall be
considered as a proper acceptance. Hence, it was deliberated that when such words are present in
a response to an offer, responsibilities shall arise no matter what regarding the person uttering
such words. Therefore, a contract will be given effect to, specifically in a situation where there is
a presence an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.
The Court in this case have mentioned provisions and statutes. In relation to the corporate
transactions, the approach that have been presumed by the Court for the usage of the different
laws and statutes, have caused certain issues for such transactions taking place in the world of
corporate organizations. The deals and the transactions that are taking place among the corporate
houses are always done by the organizations in written and printed format. That is, there is
always a presence of a tangible evidence in relation to the transactions. It is general feature or
norm that the various corporate houses follow and adhere to for their own convenience. Any
contracts or agreements that have no written manifestation are actively avoided by the
organizations and big business powerhouses. The decision of the Court that was provided in the
case might not be in favor of such business institutions. The obligatory nature that was imposed
by the Court on the parties in the given case in relation to the contract that was done with an
assist from an electronic media, goes against the concept of general tangible form of contracts of
the business sector. Every errands done electronically cannot be presumed to be agreements.
Hence, such decision of the Court may promote the fact that contract may be given effect in any
form if it has the needed elements. It does not matter if a particular contract has any written
appearance or not.

5CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Answer 7
The Supreme Court in the present case upheld the binding nature of an agreement that
was given effect with an assistance of a media of electronic nature; an e-mail in this case. Such
decision of the Court may be considered to be justified because there was a presence of the
elements of a valid contract, namely, the offer, the acceptance and a consideration, even in the
absence of a written appearance of the contract. Hence, it can be stated that the corporate
organizations should consider the ruling in this particular case as a parameter and must enter into
agreements or contracts involving large amounts, accordingly.
Part B
Answer 1 a
Issues
In this case, the issue is that whether an imposition can be made by Sally against
Margaret regarding the agreement.
Rule
The rule of the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
mentions that the actions or the inactions of the appellant did not give rise to any situation which
can be related to as consideration. Only reliance on a promise is not sufficient to be
consideration.

6CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
The case of Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4, mentions that when there is any
agreement among people having private relations, in the absence of any legal intention of the
parties, such agreement will not be regarded as legally enforced contracts.
Application
In the case, Margaret was the owner of a shop of antiques and furniture. A transfer of the
property was promised by Margaret to her daughter, Sally, if the daughter is willing to work in
the shop for a three years. Sally will not receive any salary or remuneration for the work for the
given period. However, an argument between the mother and the daughter resulted in the mother
selling the property and other securities to a customer whose name was Ben and no warning was
provided.
Applying the rule of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, it is
evident that no act of Sally can be related to as a consideration. Therefore, the promise of
Margaret was not responded to by Sally in a proper manner which means that there is no
presence of consideration.
According to the rule of Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4, it can be said that there
is a presence of mother-daughter relationship between Margaret and Sally and there is no
evidence of any legal intention regarding the agreement.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be stated that there is no valid agreement between Margaret and Sally
and sally cannot enforce accountabilities of contractual nature on Margaret.

7CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Answer 1 b
Issue
The main issue is whether Fletcher has any rights against Stan.
Rule
As mentioned in the case of Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1, an individual has the
right to rescind a particular contract if it has been compromised by committing
misrepresentations and dishonesty.
The rule of Chinnock v Marchioness of Ely (1865) 46 ER 1066 at 1069, provides that if a
party a committed the wrong in relation to misrepresentation and deception, then that party shall
compensate the party, who underwent suffering because of such dishonesty.
Application
The given case mentions that Stan, the trusted friend and advisor of Fletcher, took
advantage of the illiteracy, health issue and inadequate understanding of Fletcher, and deviously
took the land and its ownership from Fletcher. Fletcher came to know about such betrayal
afterwards.
After applying the rule of Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1, it can be understood that
the contract in the given case may be rescinded by Fletcher because of the deceptive and
dishonest conduct of Stan.
According to the rule of Chinnock v Marchioness of Ely (1865) 46 ER 1066 at 1069,
Fletcher shall have the right to collect compensation from Stan regarding the dishonest and
deceptive behavior and demeanor on the part of Stan.

8CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be stated that the right of compensation can be exercised by
Fletcher against Stan for his dishonesty and misleading ways.
Answer 2 a
Issue
The issue in the given case is that whether any remedy will be available to Susan as per
the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
According to the rule as mentioned in the case of Lucas Earthmovers Pty Limited v
Anglogold Ashanti Australia Limited [2019] FCA 1049, any individual or a business house will
be able to collect compensation if a deceptive and dishonest conduct has been committed by a
particular party. Such deception and dishonesty is opposing to the provisions of section 18
according to the Australian Consumer Law.
Application
In the given situation, the receipt in relation to the dry-cleaning of Susan’s dress was
given by the Sydney Cleaners Pty. Ltd. The backside of the receipt was the small printed
exemption that made the Sydney Cleaners unaccountable for any damage of any clothes. This
exemption was applied by Sydney Cleaners when the dress of Susan was spoiled.
After the application of the rule mentioned in Lucas Earthmovers Pty Limited v
Anglogold Ashanti Australia Limited [2019] FCA 1049, it can be said that Susan was the one
who suffered the damage and the fact that the exemption clause mentioned at the backside of

9CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
each receipt was printed in such a tiny form is an act of deception. Hence, the Sydney Cleaners
did not separately informed Susan regarding the exemption clause and that led to a conduct of
dishonesty and deception.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be mentioned that right of Susan to compensation regarding the
damage of the dress may be extracted by her from Sydney Cleaners.
Answer 2 b
Issue
The actual issue in the given case is that whether any counter action can be made against
Uncare and are there any remedies as per the provisions of Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
The Australian Consumer Law [ACL], specifically section 18 of it, provides that any
behavior or demeanor of a party that may be presumed to be dishonest and deceptive, then it
shall be opposing in relation to the provisions of the aforementioned section.
Application
In the given case, Uncare gave false information to its customers and hence by applying
section 18 of ACL, it is evident that Uncare committed an act of deception and dishonesty.
Conclusion
In conclusion it can be stated that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
will be able to file a suit against Uncare and reap remedies after filing such suit.

10CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW

11CONTRACT LAW AND AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW
References
Australian Consumer Law
Bushwall Properties Ltd v Vortex Properties Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 591
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Chinnock v Marchioness of Ely (1865) 46 ER 1066 at 1069
Electronic Transaction Act, 2001 (Cth)
Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) QCA 455
Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4
Lucas Earthmovers Pty Limited v Anglogold Ashanti Australia Limited [2019] FCA 1049
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1