BUSINESS LAW BUSINESS LAW Author Note: Ford & Anor v La Forrest v La Forrest

BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

Ford & Anor v La Forrest [2001] QSC 261
1. The present case is being decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Supreme
Court of Queensland refers to the highest court in the Queensland which is an Australian
State. The Supreme Court of the state is considered to be the superior courts of record
with unlimited as well as general jurisdiction within the state. The Superior Courts are
empowered to try any dispute that can be justified. They can try any case whether money
or not, whether be it of 1 dollar or 1 billion dollar. The Supreme Court together with the
Federal Court of every State like Queensland is regarded as the superior courts. The
Supreme Court in its State is the superior court of record and is regarded as the highest
court of that state.
2. The present case is a civil case and not a criminal case. It can be considered as a civil case
because in the present case the dispute involved here is between two persons and
organizations. If it was a criminal case, an action will be involved which can be
dangerous and harmful to the society such that an offence against the state must have
committed. This case involved dispute regarding the existence of a valid contract which
falls under the category of civil cases.
The burden of proof in this case is on the claimant or the appellant of the case. The
appellants in the case were John Ford, the first applicant and the Conrad International
Hotels Corporation, the second applicant.
3. The main issues involved in the present case are whether the terms present in the
agreement are intended to bind the parties, whether the solicitors’ conduct can be
regarded as oppressive or intimidatory. The other issues that are involved are whether
acceptance done by email can amount to a valid contract, the terms present in the
discharges are satisfactory and whether the words present in the email of the applicant
can be treated as an acceptance of the offer done in an unequivocal manner. In gist, the

issue to be decided was whether acceptance made by email can result into a binding and
legally enforceable relation under the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), ss 4, 8(1).
4. In the present case, it is decided whether there exists any compromise agreement between
the concerned parties. It was argued that no agreement was created that can bind the
parties. This was supported by the decision made in the Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA
72, (1954) 91 CLR 353, High Court. It was argued in this case that the agreement
involved here falls in the 3rd category and hence no contract is formed. The elements
considered to analyze the validity of the contract are agreement consisting of offer and
acceptance, intention of the parties to be bound by the contract and repudiation.
5. The Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353 case has been considered
while deciding the present case to analyze the intention of the parties and it was argued
that the agreement involved here falls in the 3rd category and hence no contract is formed.
In this case of Masters v Cameron, the intention of the parties to the contract are
discussed. Here, three categories have been recognized for identifying the parties’
intention such that they are bound by the agreement. The three categories are;
a. The first category is one where the parties have already reached the final agreement by
making arrangements of all the bargaining terms and the parties have the intention to
be immediately bound by performing those terms. However the parties at the same
time the parties also make a proposal that the terms of the contract must be restated in
a form that will be complete and more precise but will not be having different effect.
This was construed in Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty
Ltd. (1986) 40 NSWLR 622,1.
b. In the second category, the case scenario is such that parties have agreed to the terms of
the contract and have no intention to deviate from it or to add new terms to the
contract. However the parties have performed one or more terms which are
conditional on the execution of a formal document as seen in Sinclair Scott & Co v

Naughton [1929] HCA 34; (1929) 43 CLR 310.
c. The third category states that the parties have the intention not to conclude an
transaction at all unless the contract is executed finally.
6. The present case mainly deals whether acceptance made by email can result into a
binding and legally enforceable relation under the Electronic Transactions Act 1999
(Cth), ss 4, 8(1). It also deals with the intention of the parties. It also emphasizes on the
acceptance of the offer in an unequivocal manner. Moreover in this case, it was decided
whether there exists any compromise agreement. In each of the two cases, a binding
contract is present. In the 1st one, the contract is binding on the parties at once and they
are agreed to execute the agreed terms irrespective of the fact whether the formal
document to be contemplated comes into existence or not. In the second case, the contract
is binding on the parties to bring the contract into existence. In case of the agreement
resulted with Crown Solicitor, there was no formal contract. When Ms Morrow has
refused to discontinue and has signed a discharge, she has caused the breach of her duties.
Further it was argued by Ms Morrow that there was no compromise made as she had not
accepted the offer in an unequivocal manner. Here it was seen that since the offer was not
accepted in an unequivocal manner, a counter offer results that kills the original offer
made. Further it was submitted that the contract repudiation must not be inferred or
discussed lightly.
7) In this case it was decided that acceptance made by email can amount to valid legally
enforceable contract under sections 4 and 8(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999
(Cth). The Act mainly states that no transaction can be regarded as invalid just because it
was done by means of electronic communications. Section 8 of the Act provides that the
electronic transactions are valid. The decision given in the case is although fair but it has
some negative impacts too. In the traditional form of contract, the parties belong to the same
jurisdiction and they are controlled by the same country law. However in case of electronic