Management Law: Contract & Negligence Cases

This management law assignment analyzes various legal cases involving contracts, negligence, and consumer rights. It examines scenarios like defective product delivery, improper food handling, and misleading advertising, applying relevant legal principles and precedents from Australia's legal system. Students must demonstrate their understanding of contract law, tort law, and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by providing case summaries, legal arguments, and conclusions based on the facts presented.

Running head: MANAGEMENT LAW
Management Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1MANAGEMENT LAW
Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3
Issue.............................................................................................................................................3
Rules............................................................................................................................................3
Application..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4
Question 2........................................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rules............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Question 3........................................................................................................................................5
Issue.............................................................................................................................................5
Rules............................................................................................................................................5
Application..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................6
Question 4........................................................................................................................................6
Issue.............................................................................................................................................6
Rules............................................................................................................................................6
Application..................................................................................................................................7

2MANAGEMENT LAW
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................7
Reference.........................................................................................................................................8

3MANAGEMENT LAW
Question 1
Issue
According to the case study the issue is whether Susan was entitled to the fortune of his
husband other than the $100,000?
Rules
According to the case it is a case of contract. A contract has formed between the two or
more than two parties where they are required to satisfy the terms of contract which includes the
proposal and acceptance, consideration, capacity, intention and certainty. Therefore failure of
any terms will never able to form a contract. Administration of PNG v Leahy (1961) is one of
the cases where the contract has been failed to satisfy the terms of legal intension. Therefore the
contract became void.
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia
(1954) is another famous case where the court has found that no contract has been formed due t
the failure to satisfy the terms of the contract where the contract does not offer any consideration,
condition and legal intension. Therefore the contract has become void.
Application
Here according to the terms of the contract it is necessary to fulfill every terms to make a
valid contract which must includes proposal and acceptance, consideration, capacity, intention
and certainty. However according to the case study the agreement has failed to satisfy the terms
of legal intention therefore the contract is void. Before the marriage Tom already promised her
to bring her to Australia, give her a house to live in, a car to drive and keep her safe.

4MANAGEMENT LAW
Conclusion
The agreement which was signed at the time of marriage is completely invalid
Question 2
Issue
According to the case study, the issue is whether Steve was legally bound to buy the car
from Jason?
Rules
According to the case it is a case of contract. A contract has formed between the two or
more than two parties where they are required to satisfy the terms of contract which includes the
proposal and acceptance, consideration, capacity, intention and certainty. Therefore failure of
any terms will never able to form a contract.
Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Inc. v. Prince Rogers Nelson is one of the case of
contract law where the terms of contract have breached and pay the compensation to the innocent
party. If someone failed to form any contract according to terms of contract then the contract will
be breached.
Application
When a contract is formed it satisfies the terms of contracts which are the agreement
where one will propose the term and other will accept it. The consideration defines when a
promise has been made for the basis of the acceptance of money or property. The capacity of
contract defines whether the parties are sound mind and have the capacity to for the contract. The

5MANAGEMENT LAW
legal intention of formation of the contract should be implied. The certainty of contract defines
when contract should state with appropriate time, legal rights and obligation.
Therefore as per the case facts Steve make the condition to buy the car if Jason installed a
turbo engine, tinted window and leather seats which he has agreed. Therefore a contract has been
formed with all the implied terms.
Conclusion
Therefore Steve was legally bound to buy the car from Jason.
Question 3
Issue
According to case study the issue is whether Carl is liable for the negligence and can he
obtain any defense against the charges of negligence?
Rules
It is case of Contributory negligence where both the plaintiff and defendant are liable for
the negligence which causes damages to the plaintiff. It is defined as a defense in the negligence
under the tort law.
In the case of Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel [1985] in this case the court has
found that both the plaintiff and defendant are liable under the contributory negligence and cause
damages. Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] is another case where due to failure

6MANAGEMENT LAW
of following the instruction by the workers causes damages and found guilty under the
contributory negligence.
Application
According to the case study, Carl is not a skilled chef who has ability to cook giant fugu
fish which contains of poison. However he failed to clean the fish properly and Harry ate the
food which causes sickness and spends two weeks in hospital.
Therefore Carl was owed a duty of care while serving the food which should be cooked
by a skilled chef and as Harry has the knowledge about the poisonous effects of the fugu fish e
ate the food. Therefore Card breached the duty of care and Harry also liable for his sickness.
Therefore both are guilty under the contributory negligence.
Conclusion
The conclusion is Carl can defense himself as per the terms of contributory negligence
where both of them are liable for the negligence.
Question 4
Issue
The issue is whether Betty has any rights under ACL for not getting the actual products
which has been she ordered from Apple?
Rules
It is a case of Australian Consumer Law. Under the ACL the section 18 has legislated the
prohibited of trade or commerce from every misleading or deceptive conducts. In the case of
Miletich v Murchie (2012) it has been found that an advertising material is engaged with

7MANAGEMENT LAW
misleading or deceptive conducts where court has identify such issues. Another case Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission vs. Metricon Homes Qld Pty Ltd [2012] court has
determined with misleading or deceptive conducts while implication a verbal representation
through misleading advertising material.
Application
According to facts of the case when Betty placed the order she has knowledge about the
features of the phone which has been showed in the company’s website but after getting delivery
of the products it was not similar to advertising material. Therefore a misleading or deceptive
conduct has been found by the company. According to the section 18 of ACL the company has
involved with misleading or deceptive conducts which was against the rule of ACL. Therefore
they are bound to compensate Betty.
Conclusion
As per the case facts due to the involvement with misleading or deceptive conduct, Betty
has right to take legal action against the company.

8MANAGEMENT LAW
Reference
Administration of PNG v Leahy (1961) 105 CLR 6
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954) 92
CLR 424
Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Inc. v. Prince Rogers Nelson
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel [1985] HCA 34
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Metricon Homes Qld Pty Ltd [2012]
FCA 797 (Metricon)
Miletich v Murchie [2012] FCA 1013