Corporation Law: Case Study Assignment

Running head: CORPORATION LAW
CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CORPORATION LAW
Identification of issues:
The issue involved in this case is whether Bob has any rights under the common law
and statute.
Rules:
Cases:
1) Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited [2015] HCA 37,
(2015) 256 CLR 104 (14 October 2015), High Court (Australia).
2) Dick Bentley Production v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 2 AII ER 65
3) Van den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR 114
4) Routledge v Mckay [1954] 1 WLR 615
5) J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435
6) Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912] UKHL 2
7) Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133
8) Australian Contract Law.
In a contract, the agreement contains the terms and clauses that determine the rights
and duties of the parties of the contract. When a contract is to be executed, the parties decides
their respective terms and conditions that will be imposed on the parties once the contract is
formed. The statements made in course of a contract are to be determined whether they
amount to a term of the contract or a representation. The parties must be aware whether a
statement amounts to a term or a representation in the contract. This is important for the
parties to distinguish between the two to avail the remedies they have. If the statement
amounts term of a contract and when that term is not satisfied, then the deprived party has the

2CORPORATION LAW
option of suing the other party for violating the contract. On the other hand, when the term
appears to be a representation and if such representation is false or fraudulent, then the
suffering party can institute case against the party who made such fraudulent or false
representation. The remedies also differ when the statement is a term and when its is a
representation.
The court generally takes in to consideration few deciding factors depending on which
a statement is judged whether it is a term or representation. These factors are as follows:
 The parole evidence rule.
 The relative experience of the parties.
 The importance of the statement.
 Timing factor.
The parole evidence rule is a method that when an agreement is being written and
duly executed by all the parties to the contract by signing it, then it cannot be changed or
modified by any oral evidence like a statement that can be contradictory to the terms of the
actual contract except in the cases of fraud and mistake. This was observed in the case of
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited1.
The next factor to be considered by the court is the relative experience or expertise of
the parties to the contract. If the representor who made the statement has a better knowledge
and experience, then it is more probable to be a term of the contract. On the other hand, if the
representee has better knowledge and experience than the representor, then it is probable to
be a representation. It was observed in the case of Dick Bentley Production v Harold Smith
(Motors) Ltd2.
1 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited [2015] HCA 37, (2015) 256 CLR 104 (14
October 2015), High Court (Australia).
2 Dick Bentley Production v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 2 AII ER 65.