logo

Management Law | Assignment

   

Added on  2020-03-16

10 Pages1971 Words37 Views
 | 
 | 
 | 
Running head: MANAGEMENT LAWManagement lawName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
Management Law | Assignment_1

1MANAGEMENT LAWAnswer to question no. 1Issue:The issue of the case is to analyse whether the agreement signed between Tom andSusan was valid in nature or not. It has been observed in the case that prior to the marriage,Tom asked Susan to sign a document and the same contained certain terms and Susan put hersignature on the document. The conditions of the agreement were that if the marriagebetween the two has broken, Susan will get only $100.000. After five years of happy conjugallife when the marriage was dissolved, Susan get the contracted money only and her husbanddenied to give her other allowances.Rule:The main theme of the case has concerned the prerequisite of duress (Feldman2015). It is a provision under the contract law that states the grounds of cancellation of theenforceability of contractual compulsions. It is a sort of protection to the contracting partywho has been forced to give his consent over certain agreements. When a person forced tosign a contract because the other party to the contract have threatened him to sign the same,the legality of the agreement becomes unenforceable (Tamblyn 2017). Necessary provisionsregarding duress has been engraved under Section 50 of the Australian Consumer Act. Theterm duress is applicable when one party to a contract signed an agreement forcefully and theother party had generated threat. It has been observed in Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC27 that Alexander had threatened Barton to kill him if he had not paid a certain amount ofmoney. Privy Council cancelled the validity of the contract on the ground of duress. InSkeate v Beale [1840] 11 Ad & El 983, it was observed that the tenant became agree with therepayment when the property owner threatened to sell all his goods (Fried 2015).
Management Law | Assignment_2

2MANAGEMENT LAWApplication:In the given case study, it has been observed that Tom had threatened Susan thatif she did not give her consent over the agreement, he will not marry her. Therefore, it isobserved that it attracts the provision of threat, predominantly mental threat. It has beenobserved that the circumstances compelled her to sign the agreement. One of the terms of thevalid contract is free consent. In this case, there was no free consent present on behalf ofSusan and she has been forced to sign the document. Conclusion:The agreement made between Tom and Susan will not be enforceable on the ground ofduress.Answer to question no. 2Issue:The issue in the case is whether Steve is bound by law to buy the car from Jason. It has beenobserved in this case that Steve was searching for a turbo engine car and Jason had installedall the requirements of Steve and Steve told him that he would buy the car only after thefulfilment of all the desires. It has been observed that Jason had installed all the requirementsand after this too, Steve was refused to buy the car.Rules:The alleged matter of the case is attracting the provision of the promissory estoppels (Lee2015). According to this legal doctrine if a promise had been made to a person, it is notessential that one should pursue all the formal deliberation and the promise maker has to keepthe same in case the promisee relied on the promise (Robertson 2014). Under the Australian
Management Law | Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan
|10
|1901
|196

Management Law- Assignment
|10
|1904
|49

LAWS20061 Case Study of Management Law
|12
|2019
|57

LAWS20061 Management Law | Case Study
|7
|1406
|52

Assignment on Management Law - Doc
|12
|2376
|34

Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?
|8
|1582
|52