Agency and Contract Law Scenarios
Added on 2020-03-28
10 Pages2265 Words36 Views
|
|
|
Running head: BUSINESS LAWSBusiness LawsName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
1BUSINESS LAWSQuestion 1As per the facts of the case the prima facie issue which has been indentified is that whether athere is a contract between the parties Qantas Airlines Ltd and Airbus Corporation Ltd andwhether a claim can be made for damages by Qantas against Airbus for the breach of contract. RuleThere must be a compelling offer which has to be followed by an appropriate acceptancein relation to the formation of a legally enforceable agreement. Moreover along with theelements of offer and acceptance the parties to the contract also require convincing intention toenforce the contract legally as stated in the case of Harvey v Facey [1893].The parties are legally bound to the each other in relation to the agreement when it is formed inaccordance to the appropriate procedure. In addition it had been ruled in the case of L’Estange vGraucob (1923) 2KB 394 that where a party ignores to read the content of the contract and signsit, even if they did not intend to accept the terms of the contract their signature would make theparties bound to the terms of the contract where there is no kind of fraud or misrepresentationwhich have been made by the other party. At common law the terms of the offer have to be accepted by the person to whom it hasbeen directed unequivocally. This means that the acceptance made by the other party has to be amirror image of the offer presented by the offeree. In case any other additional or inconsistentterm is provided through the acceptance the original offer stands rejected and the acceptanceitself becomes a counter offer.
2BUSINESS LAWSThe parties to a contract have a legitimate right to incorporate a term in the contract which canrestrict any liability or damages arising out of the breach of contract as provided in the case ofRiches v Hogben [1986] 1 Qd R 315However it has been stated in the landmark case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1971] that in case any such term is incorporated by a part to the contract into it , it is the duty ofsuch party to duly communicate the existence or presence of such term in the contract to theother party in order to ensure that they are aware of it. Moreover another important principle had been provided by the case of Causer v Browne [1952]according to which a party who wants to incorporate an exclusion clause into the contract has toensure that such clause is incorporated before the contract is made. In case the clause isattempted to be incorporated into the contract after the contract has been formed between theparties the clause cannot be regarded as a part of the contract if the party expressly does not giveconsent to it. In the case of Poussard v Spiers(1876) 1 QBD 410 it was ruled by the court that the terms ofthe contract can be classified into warranties and conditions. The judge provided that the termforming the foundation of the contract is regarded as a condition of the contract. The condition istherefore the most significant term of the contract which means that if such term is violated itwould account to the fundamental breach of the contact. In case a party to the contract breaches acondition of the contract it gives the other party the power to end the contract through theprocess of repudiation. However as provided through the case of Bettini v Gye1876 QBD 183if a warranty is not complied with by the party it would result in mere damages no right ofrepudiation as a warranty does not form a fundamental part of the contract.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents