Law of Contract: Case Analysis and Application of Legal Rules

This article provides a detailed analysis of the case of Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) and the legal issues related to offer and acceptance in a contract. It also discusses the essentials of a valid contract and the application of legal rules in cases of misrepresentation and fraud. The article further explores the remedies available under the Australian Consumer Law.

Running head: LAW OF CONTRACT
LAW OF CONTRACT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF CONTRACT
Part A
1]
The Supreme Court of the State of Queensland of the nation of Australia heard the case
of Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) and certain explanations were provided by the Court. In the
country, this Court is the apex court in the Queensland State. This Court have jurisdictions,
appellate and original, under its command. When the claims amount to more than 750000
dollars, such cases are heard by the Court, specifically by its trial division. Even issues regarding
murder and Corporations Act, 2001 are attended to by the Court as matters of criminal instance.
Matters relating to appeal are also attended to by the Court.
2]
The case mentioned above, falls under the category of civil cases. This case relates to a
contract. Issues are highlighted in the case regarding the offer and the acceptance in case of a
contract. In the given case, the chief issue was in relation to the status of the acceptance that was
provided through an e-mail, for the offer forwarded. Doubts in relation to the contractual
responsibilities had to be cleared in the given case.
In this case, Adele La Forrest, also called Adele Morrow, is the appellant and the burden
of proof is on her. It is her burden to show that the acceptance made by her do not give rise to
any responsibilities, contractual to be specific.
3]
The primary concern in this case is the doubt in relation to obligations and
accountabilities being created from an acceptance forwarded to an offer, when such acceptance
was mailed. The provisions provided in the Electronic Transaction Act (Cth) enforced in the year

2LAW OF CONTRACT
1999 are considered as the legal issues in the case. Sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 4 of
the Act that is mentioned above has been debated in the given case. The issues are in relation to
the offers and the acceptances made via any media of electronic resources.
4]
In this case, the primary necessities of a contract are mentioned. Such necessities of any
contract have been provided below.
 Offer and its Acceptance: Offer made must be specific, which should be accepted. The
recognition of the offer and its acceptance must be very clear and it should be done
within a proper time.
 Consideration: In every contract, the promise of the parties is made in lieu of a reward or
value, which is known as consideration. It may not be money or simple cash in all cases
of contract. Consideration may be given in any form.
 Parties and their Intention: The parties to a contract should have an intention to
participate in the contract and such contract shall be binding on them legally. The
ultimate requisite is the presence of a consideration in a contact.
The ability of the parties to be involved in a contract, in the legal sense, must also be taken
into account. The necessities regarding a contract must be present and a particular contract
should not be illegal and must conform to legal structure (Floyd et. al., 2018).
5]
Giblin v Duggan was one of the case laws that was utilized as reference in the provided
situation. This case was used to explain the situation that a letter shall not be considered as the
supposition to the primary contract, when the letter is a reaction to any notice or caution in

3LAW OF CONTRACT
relation to any kind of proceeding. Such reply or reaction shall be considered as a simple
statement generally made with an intention to acknowledge accountability. The distinction of
this case and the Newton, Bellamy and Wolfe case was mentioned and explained by the Court in
this case.
6]
The primary issue regarding the contract in this particular case was that the acceptance
made by the appellant was via e-mail. The chief question is that whether any relationship is
established in relation to the contract because of such acceptance. A decision was forwarded by
the Court based on the sections provided in Electronic Transactions Act (Cth) enforced in the
year 1999. Section 8, specifically the sub-section (1) of this section, provides that the invalidity
of a given contract cannot be established simply because the contract was formed by any media
or communication system that is electronic. In this case, the above-mentioned provision is
applied by the Court and accordingly the Court stated that the agreement between the parties is
binding on both the parties and such agreement also encompasses the necessities of an effective
contract.
In this case, the response of Ms. Morrow to the mails sent by the respondents is not
presumed to be a simple intention. The terms or words ‘prepares to accept’, should be
acknowledged as a proper announcement made by Ms. Morrow in relation to the acceptance of
the accountability regarding the contract. The Court stated that when such words are present in
the response to an offer, it shall be considered as an acceptance, which in turn results in a
contract.
The manner in which various laws and rulings have been exploited in the given case, it
may be presumed that such manner shows an attitude of antagonism towards the commercial

4LAW OF CONTRACT
transactions. Every day, huge number of transactions materialize in the corporate world. The
decision provided by the Court regarding the given case, may give rise to various concerns for
the corporate organizations. In the corporate sector, it is common factor that the contracts that are
made, are always given a tangible form, that is, a printed or written copy is always prepared.
Several copies of such print are made for the parties and other officials. Transactions that have
no written proof or evidence of the contract, are evaded by the corporate sector. All the
agreements and contracts in the corporate world involve a lot of money or involve any
consideration of a great value. Hence, such transactions are made in a manifestation. Contracts
made orally are evaded. However, in the given situation, the Court permitted the agreement as a
obligatory contract, which was given effect to, by a response given with the help of a mail. Every
kind of tasks that are done with the help of an automated media or mail-IDs, cannot be
considered as a settlement or a contract. Such compulsory nature specified by the Court in the
provided case law, may put any business entity in a disadvantageous position because the
decision in this particular case is a proof that contracts without any written manifestation may
also be considered to be obligatory.
7]
The nature of the contract in the given case was obligatory according to the decision of
the Court. Such a decision was provided by the Court because as per the Court even though the
response to an offer was given with the help of an electronic or an automated media, it shall be
counted as a proper contract because all the mandatory essentials of a proper contract were
present. In this case, the decision provided by the Court can be considered as unprejudiced and
rational. A matter of settlement was given effect to by both the parties. When the settlement
between the parties was happening, in the first instance, all the terms mentioned in the settlement

5LAW OF CONTRACT
agreement was accepted by the appellant and a response was sent by her to the respondents via
an electronic mail (Giancaspro, 2017). However, afterwards the appellant was not interested in
going into a settlement with the respondents and mentioned that the response that she provided
cannot give rise to an obligatory contract. The Court constituted that there was an agreement and
contract between the parties. The Court stated that even though the settlement happened with the
help of an e-mail, all the mandatories of a valid contract was present in the agreement, namely
the offer by a party, the acceptance by a party and the consideration of the contract. In the
present case, the consideration of the settlement agreement was not any monetary sum or
amount, instead it was the resolution of the parties to drop the appeal and an arrangement to pay
the outlays owed by the parties respectively. Therefore, the decision as provided by the Court in
the given case law shall be considered to be unprejudiced and rational.
The decision of the Court in this case can be recognized as a guideline in case of the
numerous transactions that are undertaken by the business houses of the corporate world on a
daily basis. Therefore, the contracts and arrangements that may not be in a written or printed
format shall be handled by the business houses with proper care and must be treated as actual
contracts.
Part B
1) a)
Issue
The primary issue in the given case is that whether the agreement, which is giving rise to
a contract, can be imposed against Margaret by Sally.

6LAW OF CONTRACT
Rule
The rule provided in the case of Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162, states that
when the appellant did not mention or give any assurance or did anything that can be regarded as
a consideration, then the requisites of an actual consideration is not fulfilled. Reliance on the
promise of a party cannot be presumed as consideration.
The rule as provided in the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, states that an
agreement between parties having personal relations, cannot be considered as contracts because
the parties to the contracts never had the intention that such agreements should be treated legally
or that such agreements should be met by legal magnitudes.
Application
In this case, Margaret, the owner of the antique shop, promised to transfer the ownership
of the shop and the securities of the business to her daughter, Sally, if the daughter works in the
shop for three years without any kind of payment. However, there was an issue between the
mother and the daughter which led to an argument and the mother sold the securities to a daily
customer named Ben without any prior warning.
Applying the rule as provided in Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162, it can be
stated that Sally, the daughter, did not mention anything or gave any assurance which can be
considered as a consideration in relation to the promise made by Margaret, the mother. Hence,
only the reliance of Sally on the promise made by Margaret, shall not be presumed to be a
consideration.

7LAW OF CONTRACT
The rule of the case Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, may also be applied and hence
Sally and Margaret have personal relations as mother and daughter and they never had the
intention to treat the agreement in a legal sense.
Conclusion
In conclusion it might be said that the terms and the nature of the agreement between
Sally and Margaret did not give rise to a valid contract between them.
1) b)
Issue
In this case, the chief issue is what are the rights that can be enforced against Stan by
Fletcher.
Rule
The rule as mentioned in the case of Holmes v Jones [1907] HCA 35; 4 CLR 1692; 14 ALR 89
states that a person shall cancel a contract if misrepresentation and fraud has been performed by
another party.
The rule mentioned in the case of Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 states that damages
or compensation must be paid by a party committing fraud, to the suffered individual in case of a
deceitful and devious conduct.
Application

8LAW OF CONTRACT
In the case, Fletcher was an uneducated individual suffering from health concerns and did
not possess any knowledge regarding business. His trusted advisor as well as friend, Stan
betrayed Fletcher’s trust and snatched the ownership of the land from Fletcher through
misrepresentation and fraud, which was later discovered by Fletcher.
Applying the rule as provided in Holmes v Jones [1907] HCA 35, Fletcher will have the
right to cause the cancellation of the contract because misrepresentation and fraud has been
committed by Stan.
By applying the rule of the law Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, it might be stated
that Fletcher will exercise the right to assert reimbursement from Stan because the comportment
of Stan towards Fletcher was deceiving and disingenuous and Stan committed fraud.
Conclusion
In conclusion it can be mentioned that Fletcher may exercise the right to claim
compensation from Stan and Fletcher may rescind the contract if he thinks it is fit to do so.
2) a)
Issue
The issue in the case is that is there a way in which Susan will be able to attain remedy as per
the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
The rule as mentioned in the case Lucas v Zomay Holdings Pty Ltd [2019], provides that
reimbursements must be paid to the individual who was harmed because of the deceptive and

9LAW OF CONTRACT
devious conduct by any other party which is contradictory to section 18 as provided in the
Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Application
In this case, the receipt that was provided to Susan by Sydney Cleaners Pty. Ltd
contained a small printed term exempting Sydney Cleaners from any kind of responsibility
regarding the dress. However, the dress was severely damaged.
Applying the rule as mentioned in the case of Lucas v Zomay Holdings Pty Ltd [2019],
the party to whom damage was caused because of the disingenuous and dishonest activities of
another, shall excerpt compensation from the party by whom the fraud was committed.
Conclusion
To conclude, Susan can have the right to extract compensation from Sydney Cleaners
Pty. Ltd.
2) b)
Issue
The issue in this case is whether an action can be made as a counter to Uncare and
whether any solutions and clarifications are available as per Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
According to section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, comportment or any act by a
party that is disingenuous or dishonest regarding another party, will be contradictory to ACL and
it is restricted by law.

10LAW OF CONTRACT
Application
By the application of the rule in section 18 of the ACL, Uncare went ahead of its capacity
and informed something to its customers that was false. Therefore, dishonesty and disingenuous
is committed by the institution.
Conclusion
To conclude, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) can bring an
action against the Uncare Institution and ACCC will be able to have the remedies.

11LAW OF CONTRACT
References
Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162
Electronic Transactions Act, 1999 (Cth)
Floyd, L., Steenson, W., Coulthard, A., Williams, D., Pickering, A. C., Jackson, J., & Jackson,
A. (2018). SETTLING THE CONTRACT: ESSENTIALS OF FORMATION AND
CHARACTERISATION. Employment, Labour and Industrial Law in Australia, 1-36.
Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) QSC 261
Giancaspro, M. (2017). Is a ‘smart contract’really a smart idea? Insights from a legal
perspective. Computer law & security review, 33(6), 825-835.
Giblin v Duggan
Holmes v Jones [1907] HCA 35; 4 CLR 1692; 14 ALR 89
Lucas v Zomay Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 830
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Newton, Bellamy and Wolfe v SGIO (1986) 1 Qd R 431