Analysis of Law of Contract and Partnership in Australia

This video presentation analyzes hypothetical questions related to the law of contract and partnership in Australia. It covers topics such as offer, acceptance, revocation, partnership formation, liability, breach, and dissolution. The first question deals with the law of contract and involves analyzing whether a valid contract was formed between a hair salon owner and his customers. The second question deals with the law of partnership and involves analyzing the liability of partners in a mowing services business and the effect of death of a partner on the partnership.

Hello,
Through this video presentation, I would like to deal with two hypothetical questions that require
the analysis of the law of contract and the law of Partnership of Australia. This video
representation deals with both the questions individually after analyzing their respective laws.
Te First Question deals with the law of contract.
The basic facts that are highlighted in Question 1 is that a hair Salon is run by Ming. He
oublished an advertisement wherein a special offer was made according to which any person
who will bring the advertisement will be given the haircut at a low price of dollar 10.
Now, there are around 40 customers that approach Ming with the newspaper. Also, there were
another 10 customers that come without the newspaper. Also, Ming is of the view that he can
deny the contractual obligation on the ground that $10 is not adequate rice for a cut which is
normally for $60?. Also, can he revoke the offer by displaying the notice at the window?
All these questions can be antlered but before that few legal principles must be analyzed.
I would like to submit that when any person desires his willingness to establish a contractual
relationship upon specified terms with another party then the communication of such willingness
is offer.
Also, the approval of the specified terms by the offeree is called acceptance..
However, there is an important approach that must be made at this stage;
When the offeror specifies the mode of acceptance then it is obligatory on the offeree such mode
must be followed. Slight variation is allowed but if the deviation is a major then it is considered
as no acceptance in law.
Also, an offer is distinguish from an invitation to treat in law.
When a person is willing to ask for offers from a public then it is not termed as an offer but it is
considered as an invitation to treat
At times when an invitation has been made but the offeror has specified the means in which the
invitation is to be comply with then as per Carlill vs carbolic case then on compliance of such
term it is considered as deemed acceptance. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1970) a vending
machine was considered as not an invitation to treat but an offer. Also, any offer can be revoked
by making it available to the people intending.
This law is now applied.
It is submitted that normally an advertisement is considered as an invitation to treat.

In the given situation Ming while publishing the advertisement has specified the terms which
must be complied in order to avail the offer. So it is a kind of unilateral offer made and any
person who comply with the terms results in the formation of contract.
Now:
I would like to submit that there is valid contract with the forty customers because an
advertisement by Ming is an not an invitation, thus, by providing the same to Ming an
acceptance is made resulting in contract formation.
Also, the ten customers who did not have the advertisement cannot enforce the contract. A slight
deviation is permitted but no acceptance can be made if no advertisement is produced.
Also, Ming cannot argue that the payment of $10 is insufficient for the promise that normally
charge $ 60 because as per Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) a consideration for a
promise can be sufficient regardless of the fact whether it adequate or not.
Also, by withdrawing the offer by displaying the notice is not enough. It is necessary that the
revocation must be made by publishing the same in the paper.
Now, it is time to move to the Question 2.
In Question 2, Lucy, Seamus and Koo are friends. Lucy owns a truck, Seamus owns a
lawnmower and Koo has a computer. They are carrying a LuSeKo Mowing services, which has
their registered business name.
Now,
The foremost question that was raised was Is there a partnership amid Lucy, Seamus and Koo?
I would like to state that Now, it is found that there cannot be any partnership relationship that
can be established amid Lucy, Seamus and Koo because they were not sharing share profits nor
the business that is carried on by them was not intending by them to be carried on continuous
basis as they are students and are carrying on the activities as their hobby.
So, there cannot be any partnership relationship that can be established amid the three friends.
Now, as per the assignment for all the coming issue it was assumed that there exist a partnership
amid the friend.
The next major issue that arose was whether Lucy and Koo are liable to the purchase of the ride-
on mower?
The facts reveal that Seamus purchased a ride-on mower from FastCut without letting the other
partners know.

As per section 5 and 9 the partners in the firm are the agents of the firm and any act that is
undertaken by the partner under its capacity will bind the firm and all the other partners.
It is submitted that Lucy and Koo are liable to the purchase of the ride-on mower as they are
considered to be the agents of the firm and has the capacity to bind the firm by their actions.
It is also found that Lucy carried out his independent work at the weekend. Whether this act is
considered to be breach?
Section 29 submits that the partners must not indulge in any acts that results in the generation of
any kind of secret profits and if any secret profits is generated then the same must be accounted
to the other partners of the firm.
So, Lucy is in breach of his partnership duties when he carried out his independent work at the
weekend.
At this stage if Fastcut wants to now the name of the persons behind the business name, then, he
can see the name of all the partners, birth details, residential details, by visiting ASIC.
Now, another question arises is what is the effect of death of Seamus on partnership.
As per section 32, the partnership that is established amid the parties ceases to exist if any of the
partners to the firm dies. So, If Seamus dies then the partnership amid the three friends is
dissolved and a new partnership has to be carpeted amid Lucy and Koo.
Also, how would Lucy and Koo determine the partnership property and can the property be used
to cover the losses of the partnership firm. As per section 20, the partnership property is the
property which is bought in the firm for its use to comply with the partnership objectives. Thus,
the a truck, lawnmower and computer are used in achieving the partnership objective and thus
can be used as partnership property.