Contract Law and Negligence Cases

This assignment explores two legal scenarios: a contract dispute involving an exclusion clause and a negligence claim arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a supermarket. The first case examines whether QRZ Motors can rely on an exclusion clause to avoid liability for damages to Giovanni's car, considering the context of his limited English proficiency. The second case analyzes the potential liability of East End Four Corners Supermarket for John's injuries sustained from slipping on grapes, taking into account both the supermarket's duty of care and John's contributory negligence.

1
Q 1
Issue: the issue in this case is if BikeHike Ltd is liable under the Australian Consumer Law for
the false statement made by its accountant, Gary.
Rule: The Australian Consumer Law, which is a part of Competition and Consumer Act, 2010
provides that any statement related with the products or services of the business need to be
accurate, true and capable of being substantiated. On the other hand, if the consumers have been
misled, points may be prescribed. In such a case it does not matter if the false statement was
made intentionally or not. Therefore the Australian Consumer Law provides that it is illegal for a
business to make an incorrect statement or a statement that may create the false impression..
Such statements include the statements or advertisements issued in the media (including print,
television, radio or social media) or on the packaging of the product. Similarly, it also represents
any statement that has been made a person who represents the business. Although the law
provides that competitive advertising can be used for the purpose of promoting the superiority of
the products or services of the company as compared to its competitors, but in such a case the
claim should be accurate. Such a comparison can be related with the quality, price or the range of
the product or services.
Application: By applying the above mentioned legal rules to the facts of this question, it can be
said that BikeHike Ltd is liable for the statement made by Gary. The reason is that this statement
was a false statement and it has been made on the social media. Similarly, the statement was
made by a person who represented the business.

2
Conclusion: Therefore, ToughMount can bring action under the Australian Consumer Law
against BikeHike Ltd for the false statement made by Gary on the Facebook page of the
company. Similarly, as Gary was representing the company, BikeHike Ltd when he made the
statement, it can be said that the companies liable for Gary's actions.
Q 2
Issue: the first issue in this case, is if the elements required to create a valid contract are present
between Brenda and Steven which may allow Brenda to sue Steven for breach of contract.
Similarly, another issue is the remedies that may be available to Brenda, if it is established that
there has been a breach of contract.
Rule: The Australian contract law provides the rules related with the formation of a valid
contract between the parties. The formation of a contract deals with the requirements that are
necessary to make a valid contract. A contract can be described as a promise or a set of promises
that can be legally enforced against the parties. Therefore in this regard, a promise can be
described as an undertaking by one party or not to do something in return the other person agrees
or promises to do or not to do something. Such a promise or a set of promises becomes legally
enforceable if certain essential elements are present. For this purpose it is required that there
should be an agreement between the parties (offer and acceptance), along with consideration and
the intention of entering into legal relations, as well as the legal capacity of the parties to
contract.

3
The common law provides for the remedy of damages and liquidated claims. In cases where
there has been a breach of contract. In this context, the damages are awarded by the court as a
substitute for performance. Before the damages are awarded with a view to raise the plaintiff in
the same position in which it would have been if the contract was not breached. Hence, punitive
damages are not awarded. They could ever remedies include the remedy of specific performance
and injunctions. In case of the remedy of specific performance, the court makes an order under
which the breaching party is directed to perform the contract in the way. That is specified by the
court. Injunctions can be described as the orders, which are about the not to do something, for
example, the party should not persist with the breach of the contract.
Application: giving in to the facts that have been mentioned in this question, it can be said that
the necessary elements, required for creating a valid contract are present between Brenda and
Steven. An offer was made by to purchase the particular cloth and Brenda had accepted this offer
by replying through the e-mail. Therefore it can be said that a valid contract was created between
Brenda and Steven. As a result, Brenda can take action against Steven for the breach of contract.
Similarly, the remedies that are available in case of a breach of contract will be available to
Brenda.
Conclusion: Brenda can take action against Steven for the breach of contract. Similarly, she may
see the remedy of damages or the remedy of specific performance for the breach of contract by
Steven.

4
Q 3
Issue: The issues that need to be decided in this question is if Bill and Mary have entered into a
partnership agreement or if they were acting under a joint venture. Similarly, another issue is the
need to differentiate between a joint venture and partnership.
Rule: Generally, the terms joint venture and partnership are used interchangeably. Therefore,
many people make the mistake regarding the difference between the two. A joint venture can be
described as an agreement that exists between two or more persons or companies. In this case,
the parties decide to work together for the achievement of a strategic goal. And at the same time,
they maintain their separate businesses or entities. In case of a joint venture, each party is held
liable for the debts that have been injured for the project and similarly at the end of the project,
generally they divide the profits between themselves. Usually the relationship between the
parties is governed by a written joint venture agreement. On the other hand, a partnership can be
described as an ongoing relationship that exists between the parties. As against a company, a
partnership does not a separate legal entity. Therefore, under the law, each partner is held liable
for the actions of the other partners. The major difference between a partnership and a joint
venture is that while the partners are jointly and severally liable for each other, this is not the
case in a joint venture. Another difference that exists between the two is that in case of a joint
venture, there is no ongoing relationship between the parties and generally it has the definitive
end.
Application: in the present case, the relationship between the parties, Bill and Mary, was limited
to manufacturing and selling cardboard cartons made from recycled paper. Therefore, this

5
relationship had a definitive end, and it was not an ongoing relationship. As a result, in the
present case, the relationship between the parties can be described as a joint venture.
It is significant to maintain the difference between a partnership and the joint venture, because
the lock equity has imposed certain additional legal obligations on the partners. Therefore, the
partners have certain additional fiduciary duties. Traditionally these duties are not considered to
be applying to joint ventures.
Conclusion: In this case, the relationship between Bill and Mary was that of a joint venture. The
difference between the two is significant because certain additional duties have been imposed on
the partners by the law.
Q 4
Issue: the issue in this case is if the company can rely on the exclusion clause and refuse to pay
compensation to Giovanni for the damage caused to his car by fire.
Rule: An exclusion clause can be described as a clause of the contract, generally in writing,
according to which it is stated that a party to the contract cannot be held liable for a particular
happening. For example, when a person is going to park his car in a car park by paying a fee, the
owner of the car park will try to exclude his liability for any damage that may be caused to the
vehicle in the car park. However, the law provides that an exclusion clause can be treated as
valid only if such a clause has been properly incorporated in the contract and it is also necessary
that the clause should not be contrary to the law. A clause is said to be properly incorporated in
the contract only if it was not included in the contract after the formation of the contract. In case

6
of a signed contract, generally it will be considered as being included in the contract. However, if
a signed contract is not present, but there is a printed document or a signpost, which mentions the
terms, such term can be included in the contract only if the term was brought to the notice of the
other party before the formation of the contract.
Application: In this question, Giovanni is an elderly immigrant from Italy. He had little fluency
in English. Therefore, when Ben, the truck driver gave the contract to sign, Giovanni could not
understand what was mentioned in the term of the contract. He had signed the contract when Ben
told that it was standard authorization and signed by everyone. Under these circumstances, it can
be said that the exclusion clause was not a part of the contract. As a result, QRZ Motors cannot
rely on the exclusion clause and they cannot refuse to pay compensation to Giovanni.
Conclusion: The exclusion clause is not valid and therefore QRZ Motors cannot rely on it to
deny compensation to Giovanni.
Q 5
Issue: the issue in this question is related with the liability of the East End Four Corners
Supermarket when John had slipped on the floor of the supermarket on some grapes. John failed
to see the grapes because he was busy in sending a text message was wife. On the other end, the
store manager informed that the aisles were regularly inspected for spillages but on that day, the
particular employee assigned to clean the spillage was on leave.
Rule: In order to establish the liability of the defendant under negligence, the claimant is required
to establish that the defendant was liable for the injury and the defendant had the duty of care and
the defendant was negligent (Fitzsimmons v Coles Supermarkets, 2013). While deciding this

7
issue, the court considers what would have been done by any other reasonable person. Similarly,
the court also looks into other circumstances like contributory negligence and consent (Jackson v
McDonald’s Australia Ltd, 2014). In such cases, the amount of damages awarded to the claimant
depends on the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the claimant.
Application: in the present question, John had suffered an injury when he broke his ankle. He
had slipped on some grapes in the fruit section. The supermarket can be held liable in negligence,
as it had failed to see the spillage and clean it. The reason was that the employee who was given
the duty to clean the spillage was on sick leave. However, John can also be held contributory
negligent due to the reason that while walking, he was also sending a text message to his wife.
Therefore we could not see the grapes on the floor.
Conclusion: The supermarket is liable in negligence for the injuries suffered by John but the
amount of compensation can be reduced due to the contributory negligence of John. In order to
deal with such a situation, East End Four Corners Supermarket could have taken a negligence
insurance.

8
References
Fitzsimmons v Coles Supermarkets [2013] NSWCA 273
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162