Lease Agreement Dispute Resolution

This assignment delves into a legal dispute concerning a lease agreement. The lessor intends to install a fake soccer pitch, potentially hindering the lessee's use and access to the premises for two weeks. The lessee objects to this installation due to its impact on business inquiries scheduled for that period. The assignment examines the relevant clause in the lease agreement (clause 5.1) which dictates the lessor's need for lessee consent for any actions affecting the premises' use. It argues that the soccer pitch installation materially affects the lessee's interests, justifying their right to deny consent.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Part 1
Answer 1.1
Issue:
Whether C&K Scaffolding and Partners are bound for the promise made by one of its partner
Cahill?
Law:
Section 9 of the partnership Act 1963 states the provisions related to power of certain partners to
bind the firm. As per this section partner of the firm is considered as the agent of the firm and
also of other partners in the firm for the purpose of conducting the business of the firm. This can
be understood through case law Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 46: V & L, 19.44.
Section further states that act done by partner in his capacity of partner for the purpose of
conducting the business of the firm, binds the firm and other partners in the firm unless person
who act is not authorized to act on behalf of the firm for that particular matter and the person to
whom with partner deals has knowledge that the partner has no authority to act on behalf of the
firm.
As stated above, partner is the agent of the firm and other partner in the firm, which means
general rule is applied that principle is liable for the act done by it’s agent.
Application:
In the present case, C&K Scaffolding and Partners of the firm is liable under section 9 of the Act
which states that act done by partner in his capacity of partner for the purpose of conducting the
business of the firm, binds the firm and other partners in the firm. Cahill is also considered as an
agent of the firm, and promise made by Cahill is binding on the firm. Therefore, firm is liable for
installing the technical tower, providing spot light ramp and certification for that purpose.

Law 3
Conclusion:
Partners of the firm are liable to installing the technical tower, providing spot light ramp and
certification for that purpose.
Answer 1.2
Issue:
Whether seller breaches any provision of the sale of Goods Act 1923 by providing low quality of
goods to the buyer?
Law:
Section 19 of Sales of Goods Act 1923 states provisions related to implied quality, and as per
this section there is no provision which states any implied warranty in terms of quality and
fitness is applied or any type of goods which are delivered to the buyer under the contract of sale.
This general principle has exception also:
When buyer expressly or by implication states the particular purpose to the seller for which
goods are purchased, buyer depends on the judgment of the seller, and the goods sell by seller
are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply then in such
situations implied warranty related to quality and goods of the business is applied for such
purpose.
Section further states that when goods are brought by description from the seller who sells the
goods from that description, then in such case implied condition is applied that goods must be of
merchantable quality.
Application:

Law 4
In the present case, Seller of the goods deliver the goods which are not of merchantable quality,
and in this case implied condition is applied because buyer expressly or by implication states the
particular purpose to the seller for which gods are required and the goods sell by seller are of a
description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply.
After considering the above facts, it is clear that Soccer Super Store is liable to send quality
goods to the Nick and by delivering low quality goods, Soccer Super Store breach section 19 of
the Act.
Conclusion:
Soccer Super Store is liable to send quality goods to the Nick and by delivering low quality
goods, Soccer Super Store breach section 19 of the Act.
Answer 1.3
Issue:
Whether any obligation is arise to sell the T-shirts to the Melanie for $13?
Law:
It must be noted that agent is under duty to follow the terms and instructions given by the
principle. Employee is also considered as the agent of the employer, and as per rule employer is
vicariously liable for the acts of the agent. This can be understood through case law Mitor
Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd and Australian

Law 5
Insurance Brokers (WA) Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 365. In this case, Court stated that agent fail to
follow the instructions of the principle.
It must be noted that principle is also liable towards the third party for the promise made by
agent in his capacity of agent to the third party. Principle is also liable in those situations also
when agent does not within their authority but in the ordinary course of the business.
Principles also possess rights against the agent who fail to perform his duty towards the principle
and these rights include to recover the damages and loss bear by the principle because agent fail
to perform his functions with due care and skill (Mckarthy, n.d.).
Application:
In the present case, seller is bound to sell T-shirts to Melanie for $13 because principle is also
liable towards the third party for the promise made by agent in his capacity of agent to the third
party. In this case, seller told his bar manger to sell the T-shirts for $30 but because of hearing
problem manager write $13 on white board. Therefore, Melanie has right to purchase T-shirts for
$13 only.
Seller has right to recover the damages from bar manager because of the act done by bar
manager.
Conclusion:
Melanie has right to purchase T-shirts for $13.

Law 6
Answer 1.4
Issue:
Whether game of table top football has been sold, and if it has been sold then at what price?
Law:
For the purpose of enabling the E-mail to constitute binding agreement between the parties, it is
necessary to meet the basic requirements of contract that are offer and acceptance. Court also
considers the evidence that while making the contract both the parties intended to be bound with
the legal obligations. This can be understood through case law Stellard Pty Ltd & Anor v North
Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd. In this case, Court stated binding contract related to sale of land is
existed between the parties and contract was formed by exchange of E-mails between the parties.
Section 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 state the provisions related to time of
receipt of E-mail. As per this section, for the purpose of law of commonwealth unless it is agreed
between the originator and the addressee related to electronic communication that time of receipt
of E-mail is considered at that time when addressee become capable to retrieved the electronic
communication at that electronic address which is given by the addressee.
Section further states, for the purpose of above sated provision unless otherwise agreed between
the originator and the addressee of the electronic communication, Court assumed that addressee
is able to retrieve the electronic communication at the time when such information reaches the
electronic address of the addressee (Simone, n.d.).

Law 7
In other words, information is retrieved by the addressee at the time when such information is
reached in the mail box of the addressee and not at the time when addressee reads the
information.
Application:
In the present case, Tina made the counter offer which terminates the original offer, and in
counter offer Tina said to purchase the game for $1000. This counter offer is accepted by the
offeror. In this case, game is sold for 1000 because offeror sends his E-mail of acceptance first
and about the same time offeree sends the E-mail to cancel the counter offer. As stated above,
time of receipt of E-mail is considered at that time when addressee becomes capable to retrieve
the electronic communication at that electronic address which is given by the addressee.
There is one more general rule which states that once offer is accepted then it cannot be
cancelled by the offeror, which means Tina cannot cancel the offer of $1000. Therefore, Contract
exists between the parties and game is sold out for $1000.
Conclusion:
Contract exists between the parties because all the necessary elements of contract are present,
and game is sold out for $1000 and not for $1500.

Law 8
Part 2
Answer 2.1
Landlord of the premises is under obligation to provide guide to renting to the new tenants, and
landlord is also under obligation to provide following documents to the tenant:
 Organize the agreement related to tenancy and provide copy of the tenancy agreement to
the tenant. However, landlord is also under obligation to complete the conditional
agreement at the time when tenant is present.
 Landlord is under obligation to provide the copy of the condition agreement to the tenant.
 Landlord is under obligation to sign the tenancy report, once such report is reviewed and
signed by the tenant.
 Provide the tenant with the copy of the report which is signed by both the parties.
 Landlord is also under obligation to provide No objection certificate to the tenant.
Answer 2.2
Issue:
Whether Lessee can deny to give permission to the Lessor for installing fake soccer pitch in the
premises?
Law:
Lease agreement is considered as simple contract between the landlord and a tenant which states
that tenant will pay monthly for rent and other obligations of tenant and landlord. Once both the

Law 9
parties signed the lease agreement then agreement governs what the landlord and the tenant can
and cannot do during the term of the lease. In other words, lease agreement is legal and binding
contract between the parties which will use as evidence by the Court in case any dispute arises
between the parties.
As stated terms stated in the lease define the rights and liabilities of the parties and parties are
bound by the terms of the contract. If any term is breached by the parties then it is considered as
breach of condition and warranty. In other words, both lessor and lessee are bound to follow the
terms of the contract.
Application:
In the present case, both lessor and lessee signed the agreement and this agreement is binding on
the parties. Clause 5.1 of the agreement states the provision related to lessee’s consent. As per
this clause, it is necessary for lessor to take the consent of the lessee before conducting any
process, step or dealing which has interest related to the land and the lessee must provide the
consent within the period of seven days from the date of receipt of request. This clause further
states that, such process, step or dealing must not materially affect the Lessee's use of, or access
to, the Premises.
In this case, Lessor wants to install fake soccer pitch in the premises and inform about the same
to the Lessee. If this pitch is installed in the premises then lessee is unable to use the back of the
premises for at least two weeks and lessee had number of enquiries related to this area of
premises for this time period. Further, lessee is not happy with the fake soccer pitch and does not
want to give permission to the Lessor.

Law 10
Lessee can deny giving the permission to the lessor because it is stated in clause 5.1 that if
process, step or dealing materially affect the Lessee's use of, or access to, the Premises, then
lessee has right to deny the permission to the lessor. In this Fake pitch soccer materially affects
the interest of lessee because lessee is not able to use the area for two weeks and lessee had
number of enquiries related to this area of premises for this time period. Therefore, Lessee has
right not to give permission to the Lessor.
Conclusion:
Lessee has right not to give permission to the Lessor because it materially affect the Lessee's use
of, or access to, the Premises.
References:
Electronic transaction Act 1999- Section 14A.
McKrathy, Vicarious Liability In The Agency Context. Available at:
https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8nY-
jxJzXAhVBQ48KHfKyA14QFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flr.law.qut.edu.au%2Farticle
%2Fdownload%2F204%2F198%2F&usg=AOvVaw1JC0W_O0psfbzeBqJ9NFLT. Accessed on
1st November 2017.

Law 11
Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd and Australian
Insurance Brokers (WA) Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 365.
Partnership Act 1963- Section 9.
Sales of Goods Act 1923- Section 19.
Simone, H. (2001). Hill, Simone W. B --- "Email Contracts - When is the Contract Formed?"
[2001] JlLawInfoSci 4; (2001) 12(1) Journal of Law, Information and Science 46. Available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/4.html#Heading20. Accessed on 1st
November 2017.
Stellard Pty Ltd & Anor v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd.
Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 46: V & L, 19.44.