Will Your Contract Be Enforced Under the Law?

PART A
Issue (1)
Whether a valid contract was there between Bruce and
auctioneer? Whether Bruce is liable to fulfill promises under the
contract?
Rules
• Every contract contains some factors that are essentials for the
same. It means the absence of anyone or more factors prevents
the development of agreement into a contract. Offer is the first
essential that refers to a proposal from one party to another.

RULES
• The third element is a valid consideration. According to
the same, both parties must be likely to achieve
something out of a contract that can be anything having a
legal value.
• It means the consideration is not required to be monetary.
• The next element is the capacity of the parties which is
one of the significant essentials that also influences other
essentials such as consent sometimes.

RULES
• When a party being in an intoxicated state enters into a
contract, the same is not likely to be bind with the same.
• Nevertheless, it should have proved that at the time of
making an offer or providing the consent to an offer, a
person was not in the state to understand the nature of
the subjective transaction or was not aware of the nature
of the contract he/she was entering into.

APPLICATION
• In the case given hereby, it is not given that whether the
subjective auction was with reserve or without reserve
hence to assume that the same was without reserve.
• Applying the provisions of Heathcote Ball v Barry it was
a unilateral offer . Bruce accepted this offer by making a
successful bid.

APPLICATION CONT…
• In addition to this, the other party i.e. auctioneer had full
knowledge about the lack of capacity of Bruce to enter
into the contract.
• As both the conditions are given in the case of Blomley v
Ryan, it does satisfy here hence the Bruce can held the
contract void.
• Later on, he ratified the contract with the auctioneer but
further refused to complete the contract.

REFERENCES
• Australiancontractlaw.com. (2020) Capacity to contract.
[online] Available from:
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-
capacity.html#intoxication [Accessed on 29/01/2020]
• Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
• Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
• Heathcote Ball v Barry [2000] EWCA Civ 235
• Scammell & Nephew v. Ouston [1941] AC 251

PART B
Issue (1)
Whether Bandalong Surfwear can be held liable for negligence to the
injury happened to Steve.
Rules (1)
• In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, it was given
that a person owes a duty of care to a neighbor and for this definition;
a neighbor is a person that is likely to be affected by one's action.
• A party held liable for the negligence where the same held breaches
duty of care owed to others and due to such breach, the other person
suffers from some loss.

PART B
Issue (2)
• Whether Bandalong Surfwear can be held liable for negligence to the
incident happened to Drew.
Rules (2)
• In the case of Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, it was
given that a duty of care seems to be there if there is a relationship of
proximity between parties, the risk was foreseeable and it is justified to
held the defendant liable.
• The other condition for successful claim of negligence are breach of duty
by defendant, loss to claimant and a direct relationship between such loss
and negligence.

PART B
Issue (3)
• Whether Bandalong Surfwear can be held liable for
negligence to the incident happened to Sandra.
Rules (3)
As mentioned above, four conditions need to satisfy for
being successful in a negligence claim. Breach of duty is
one of the significant requirements that demand the
defendant to fail in pursuing the duty of care.

Application (3)
• The incident to Sandra happened at her home. No breach
of duty seems to be there due to a lack of likelihood of
an incident.
• Although at the time of the incident, she was working
for the employer yet the risk was not foreseeable to
Bandalong Surfwear.

Issue (4)
• Whether Bandalong Surfwear can be held liable for negligence to
an action done by Eve.
Rules (4)
• There is an exception under Tort Law where one person may held
liable for negligence done by another person and this principle is
well known as vicarious liability.
• As per the provisions of this principle, the court may held liable an
employer for the wrongs done by his/her employee conducted
during the performance of their job (Humanrights.gov.au, 2020).

REFERENCES
• Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
• Humanrights.gov.au. (2020) Vicarious liability. [online]
Available from:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/vicarious-
liability [Accessed on 29/01/2020
• Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915