Law Assignment Australian Contracts & English Common Law
12 Pages2556 Words144 Views
Added on 2020-02-19
Law Assignment Australian Contracts & English Common Law
Added on 2020-02-19
ShareRelated Documents
Law Assignment 1Law AssignmentNameInstitution
Law Assignment 2Predominantly, Australian contracts are bound by English Common law,Corporations Act (2001), Competition and Consumer Act(2010)and otherindividual state statutes and regulation. Under Australian contract law, contractsare legally binding promises usually made under agreement with the passing of aconsideration between the parties .In the event of breach of agreement, the partyaggrieved by the breach of contract has various options available. In this case,Qantas has the option of suing for payment of the liquidated sum contained in thecontract (Clarke, 2010) Typically, liquidated sums are payable in the event ofbreach of contract and is usually stipulated in the contract before it is signed(Mcnair, 2016).Law and Issues Typically, contractual terms can be expressed in terms of conditions andwarranties. A condition implies any term or terms that stems to the root of thecontract whereas a warranty implies terms in the contract that aren’t so importantto the contract. In the event that there’s a breach of a condition in a contract, theaggrieved party is entitled to repudiate the contract and claim damages therein.However, in the case of a breach of the warranty of a contract, the aggrieved partyis entitled to claim damages as opposed to repudiating the contract.Under English contract law which is applicable in Australia. As articulated in thecontract signed between Qantas and Airbus, the liquidated sum in the event ofbreach of contract is legally available for Qantas Airlines to claim underliquidated sums of money claim as stipulated in the contract. Similarly, in
Law Assignment 3Poussard V Spiers, It was decided by the court that the inability of madamPoussard to perform as an opera singer due to the fact that she got ill on the eve ofthe performance was considered a breach of a condition thus entitling thedefendants to terminate the contract. In the Moorcock case, it was held that there an implied undertaking of deliveringobligations under the contract. in this case, there was an undertaking to take theShip ,Moorcock out for mooring .However, due to low tides, the ship gotdamaged thus it was held that the defendants were in breach of this impliedundertaking. Regarding exclusion of liability clauses, under Common law ,suchare unenforceable due to the need to protect aggrieved parties in a contract. Asillustrated in Olley v Marlborough Court, the hotel was not bound to pay for thestolen coat in their hotel premises because there had been a disclaimer notice inthe hotel room. Exclusion clauses are enforceable if signed with the contract and nototherwise .As articulated in the contract signed between Qantas and Airbus, theliquidated sum of money in the event of breach of contract is legally available forQantas Airlines to claim under liquidated sums of money claim as stipulated inthe contract. Additionally, Qantas Airlines Ltd can apply to the court for specificperformance and injunctions .Primarily, specific performance and injunctions areequitable remedies for (Clarke, N .d). Whereas a claim for damages and liquidated damages is Common law.Mandatory injunction can be obtained to compel Airbus Corporation to reverse
Law Assignment 4the effects of the breach of contract in this case the installation of the rightentertainment software (Allen and Overy, N. d).In Sky Petroleum Ltd V ViPPetroleum Ltd, an injunction was granted to prevent the defendants fromterminating a contract which they had committed to buying petrol supplies fromthe plaintiffs for a minimum period of ten years. Specific performance refers toorders issued by the courts upon application by the aggrieved party to compel theother party to fully execute his or her part of the contract. As illustrated in Bettini vs Gye, it was held that the inability of an opera singer toperform as contracted due to an illness was more of a breach of warranty than acondition thus making it unnecessary for the defendants to terminate the contractof service. However, the same does apply to the Qantas case as the inability toinstall the recommended software entitles the Airline to damages as opposed totermination of contract. In the case of breach of contractual terms, the partyaggrieved by the breach of contract has various options available. In this case,Qantas Airlines has the option of suing for payment of the liquidated sum.Typically, exclusion clauses are contractual clauses stipulated in a contractdenying or limiting liability on the part of the buyer. Most times, such clauses areunenforceable but sometimes enforceable if properly construed in the contract andupholds contract laws. Regarding exclusion of liability clauses, under Commonlaw, such are unenforceable due to the need to protect aggrieved parties in acontract.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
LAW504 Business and Corporations Lawlg...
|9
|2143
|146
Contract Law Assignment : Qantas Airlines Ltdlg...
|12
|2266
|391
Whether Qantas Airlines Ltd (Qantas) is entitled to claim compensation from Airbus Corporation Ltd (Airbus) Rule 1 2 Question 1 Issuelg...
|10
|2337
|499
Business Law - Qantas Airlines Ltdlg...
|10
|2240
|201
Business Laws | Question and Answers | Qantas and Airbuslg...
|10
|2263
|158
Business Law | Qantas Airlineslg...
|9
|1857
|50