Analysis of Australian Contract Law in Gertrude Gamp vs. Steve Dispute

This report delves into an Australian contract law case involving Gertrude Gamp and Steve, focusing on a dispute over a commercial property lease. The analysis examines the legal issues arising from the Heads of Agreement, the role of Gertrude's agent, Anna, and the application of relevant laws such as the RTC 1997 and the doctrine of freedom of contract. The report explores the implications of Steve's actions, including his payment of rent and purchase of furniture, and the potential consequences for Gertrude. It also discusses the significance of legal precedents like Jones v Bartlett and the PPSA 2009, offering insights into the rights and responsibilities of both parties. The conclusion suggests that Anna should have notified Gertrude of the agreement with Steve, and Steve should have directly interacted with the owner. The report emphasizes the importance of clear communication, proper documentation, and adherence to legal procedures in contract law. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the case and offers valuable insights into the complexities of Australian contract law.

Australian Contracts Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Gertrude Gamp.................................................................................................................................1
Issue:.......................................................................................................................................1
Rules/Laws:............................................................................................................................2
Applications:...........................................................................................................................2
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
To attain the favourable jurisdiction in context with Australian contract laws and various
rulings which are issued by ATO. Thus, there has been various policies and procedures under
which the corporations and the citizens of the Australia will become able to gain the adequate
jurisdiction over their operational activities. Hence, in the present assessment there will be
discussion based on the case of Gertrude Gamp and Steve in terms with selling and purchasing
the commercial lot as well as the rent payable over such property. However, the report will also
shed lights over several laws, acts, rulings and real cases which are relevant with such case as
well as it will help the parties to gain the adequate advice that how they can manage such issues.
Further, there will be adequate suggestions which are suggested to the parties in terms with
making the favourable business transactions as well as the relevant cases which are act as the
precedents of the case and helps them in having fair judgements.
Gertrude Gamp
Issue:
 The issue lies over the case of Gertrude Gamp who had Purchases a commercial lot in
Sydney Australia CBD which was rented to Steve and have the monthly gains for $900.
However, on November 2nd Gertrude issued a notice to Steve to vacant the property
which will be started from the 31st December.
 In this regards Steve said that he do not need to vacant such place as the agent of
Gertrude, Anna comes to him and they had the conversation that she has offered him the
12 month of the lease over such property and made him signed over the documents of
Heads of Agreement.
 Thus, the agreement was made between them as Steve has paid $1000 of the rent in
advance with accepting over 12 months of the lease.
 Steve than signed the Heads of agreement on 1st November and made email to Anna as
well as he has made payments for $1000 as the direct deposit rent as the pending
documentation.
1

 After such transactions Steve decided to purchase some furniture in context with making
the renovation at the office premises. Thus, he was confident enough that he had leased
for 12 months.
 On November 2 Anna looked at the lease document as realised that she has prepared such
document in October under consideration or knowledge of Gertrude which was not to
send Steve as it has the clerical errors.
Rules/Laws:
 RTC, 19971
 HOA2
 Jones v Bartlett [2000]3
 The doctrine of freedom of contract
 PPSA, 2009 (CTH)4
Applications:
In consideration with issues between Gertrude Gamp and Steve there has been various
transaction held between them. Thus, such transactions are to be made in between their rental or
lease obstacles over commercial lot. Thus, Gertrude has rented the property to Steve and then
demanded to vacant the place (Hulse and Burke, 2016). Therefore, before Gertrude comes to him
his agent Anna went to meet Steve for making the agreement of 12 months of lease over such
property. Thus, such agreement she had sanded Steve over the email as she has founded that
Gertrude has made such email and didn't send it so she sanded it over (Gurran, Gallent and Chiu,
2016). On the other side Steve had signed the document as well as agreed over the proposal as
he thinks that the lease was made for 12 months.
However, after such transaction he has purchased some furniture for the development of
the office premises that the property was on lease for 12 months. Hence, in accordance with the
section 8 of RTC, 1997 the premises must connected for the business purpose (Duncan and et.al.,
1 Residential Tenancies Act 1997
2 Heads of Agreements
3 HCA 56; 205 CLR 166; ALR 137;75 ALJR 1
4 Personal Property Securities Act 2009
2

2017). However, this section helps in making the adequate jurisdiction as it contains various
norms, rules which are relevant with standard residential tenancy terms (Easthope and Randolph,
2016). Therefore, it contains various agreements that the lessor and tenant if agreed upon such
contract than such fair clause must contain in the fair clause. Thus, such tenancy terms must be
endorsed under section 10 of ACAT5 of Australia (Hulse and Burke 2016).
The case is relevant with the case of Jones v Bartlett which in turn reflects that the
landlord's duty of care for their tenants (Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; 205 CLR 166; 176 ALR
137; 75 ALJR 1 (16 November 2000), 2001). Hence, it can be said that Gertrude must analyse the
document which was signed by Steve in context with having the lease over such commercial
property. Thus, it can be said that, there are faults which are relevant with the Gertrude that Anna
has sanded such proposal to Steve which was under consideration of him as well as the
responsibility lies over Anna that she must have notified Gertrude for such transactions or
agreements she is going to make in the coming time. However, it can be said that there is need to
have the adequate jurisdiction over such transactions. Hence, it can be said that Steve must be
benefited with the 12 months of the lease agreement as he has signed the document such as
Heads of agreement (Douglas, Leshinsky and Condliffe, 2016). Thus, the fair jurisdiction will be
levied as per the norms and regulations which are set my ATO or federal registrar of legislations
(Tiwari and et.al., 2016).
Moreover, in accordance with the Division 8 of RTC ACT, 1997 There will be various
rights which are awarded to the tenants or the citizens of Australia in terms with having the legal
authority to make entry in the agreement such as rented premises (Sherry, 2016). Hence, it will
be loss for Steve that he has made the renovation expenses over these premises such as
purchasing of furniture and making developments. Hence, such charges or expenses which are
made by Steve are not into the consideration of Gertrude as well as the clerical error was not in
the consideration of Anna. Thus, it can be said that there will be Gertrude need to make
payments for the $1000 which are deposited by Steve on such lease agreement. Hence, this
expense are to be paid by the parties who are indulged in such business transactions as well as
make the adequate payments of all the expenses or losses which are on Steve (Altmann, 2016).
However, it can be said that there is need to have the fair jurisdiction over this case.
5 Aged Care Assessment Team
3

In consideration with making the agreements by agents on behalf of the owner this is
necessary that thy must communicate or notify the whole transactions (Hulse and Burke, 2016).
Therefore, such actions will be beneficial for the owner's that they will have the favourable
knowledge regarding all the transactions (Gurran, Gallent and Chiu, 2016). Hence, here Anna
has presented Heads of agreement document to Steve which is in turn a non legal document used
for initial stage of making agreement relevant with the trade and commerce as well as keeps the
records of all the transactions held in between two parties (Duncan and et.al., 2017). The
document is consisted of all the informations which are relevant with the party's name, address
and the consideration is being payable by them. Hence, as per the nature of such document is non
legal than it can be said that Steve will not being able to claim over the money he has invested as
well as he did not bound Gertrude for such transactions because Anna did not notify the owner
(Easthope and Randolph, 2016). Thus, agents can make agreements of contracts with the external
parties on behalf of owner as well as they could make monetary transaction but with the
condition that they must notify the owner for all the transactions, process and purpose (Hulse and
Burke, 2016). However, in this regards Anna must have communicated such transactions with
the owner as well as make the adequate documentation which will be legally approved.
In terms with the legal environment of Australia all the norms and regulations were being
set by Federal legislations and ATO in respect with warding the adequate judgement to citizens
which will reflect the human rights, equality as well as prevent them from the unlawful or
fraudulent acts (Douglas, Leshinsky and Condliffe, 2016). There will be various rules and
regulations which are in turn helps in building the favourable legal environment. Thus, the issues
mainly rise with the rental property and in between tenant and owner which are in terms with the
agreements or contracts they have made as well as consideration were payable by them (Sherry,
2016). Hence, in this case the rental agreement between Steve and Gertrude was signed for the
$900 per months will be payable in the consideration with the commercial lot. Thus, for the
further agreement where Steve has made payments for $1000 which in turn mentioned in the non
legal binding document (Altmann, 2016). Thus, the case will result that there is not need to make
any further payments of any agreements as well as of any business operations. However, it will
be advices that before entering any contract there is need to make the direct interactions with the
owners of such property in context with acquiring the lease or rental property. Hence, it can be
said that there will be influence of various external factors such as mediators, agents which are
4

not having the authority with the property they are just acts as the consultant as well as facilitate
the adequate dealings to the parties who are interested in the trade and commerce (Finzsch,
2017). Hence, in order to have the appropriate contract and agreements with the parties there is
need to make the positive interaction with the owner as well as make complete documentation of
such transactions which are to be under considerations and best of the knowledge of such parties.
In accordance with the doctrine of freedom of contract which has always been respected
by the laws, that helps in facilitating the allowance to all the parties to make the agreement or
perform any transaction. Therefore, the electronic contracts are not been legally approved by the
court because of having the unlawful details (The doctrine of freedom of contract, 2017).
therefore, there has been various principles of such contract laws of Australia which in turn helps
in making the fair jurisdictional environment in country (Principles of Australian contract law /
John Gooley, Peter Radan, Ilija Vickovich, 2014).
In terms with the common wealth laws of Australia which has facilitated PPSA, 2009 on
which the there are rights and security allowed to owners over their personal property. Therefore,
in accordance with that, Gertrude has rights to make plans and variation in the contracts which
are based on his own property (Altmann, 2016). Therefore, such plans and operations are to be
under the consideration of all the parties specially the tenant and the respected parties who are
involved in such agreements then it will be valid. However, in accordance with the sections 12,
13 there are provisions relevant with Security interest and PPS lease were presented in motive to
protect the operations of business and owner's rights (Hulse and Burke, 2016).
CONCLUSION
In consideration with the above case it can be said that with the help of various norms or
laws which are facilitated and in acted by ATO and federal registrar of legislation there will be
fruitful judgements which in turn helpful for the corporations as well as for citizens. Hence, it
will be suggested to the parties that being an agent Anna must make communication or notify the
owners for all the transactions and the agreement related documents. Thus, it will be helpful for
the owner to not to make any further contract or agreement which is already being signed any
further document. In accordance with Steve it can be said that he did not claim any charge over
Gertrude on behalf of the heads of agreement as it is a non legal document but he can sue Anna
for the non valid transactions and her irrespective behaviour that she did not notify owner for
5

such transactions. Further the rental property which was the deal between Steve and Gertrude
will be made in accordance with making the adequate payments for 900 per month is the legal
transaction and that will be carried forward.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Altmann, E., 2016. Small scale housing unit developments: Implications for strata manager
market penetration. Property Management. 34(3). pp.262-275.
Douglas, K., Leshinsky, R. and Condliffe, P., 2016. Conflict in strata title developments: the
need for differentiated dispute resolution rules. Adel. L. Rev.. 37. p.163.
Duncan, W. D. and et.al., 2017. Property Law Review–Final Recommendations–Procedural
Issues under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.
Easthope, H. and Randolph, B., 2016. Principal–agent problems in multi-unit developments: The
impact of developer actions on the on-going management of strata titled properties.
Environment and Planning A. 48(9). pp.1829-1847.
Finzsch, N., 2017. ‘The intrusion therefore of cattle is by itself sufficient to produce the
extirpation of the native race’: social ecological systems and ecocide in conflicts between
Hunter–Gatherers and commercial stock farmers in Australia. Settler Colonial Studies.
7(2). pp.164-191.
Gurran, N., Gallent, N. and Chiu, R. L., 2016. Politics, Planning and Housing Supply in
Australia, England and Hong Kong. Routledge.
Hulse, K. and Burke, T., 2016. Private rental housing in Australia: Political inertia and market
change. Housing in 21st-century Australia: People, practices and policies, pp.139-152.
Sherry, C., 2016. Strata Title Property Rights: Private Governance of Multi-owned Properties.
Taylor & Francis.
Tiwari, A. and et.al., 2016. Examining why developers encourage foreign investment in local
residential real estate in India. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis.
9(4). pp.580-600.
PDF
Residential Tenancies Act 1997. 2017. [PDF]. Available through:
<http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/
edfb620cf7503d1aca256da4001b08af/c7f3c6d8118d4bcaca256e5b00213c3d/$FILE/97-
109a.pdf>.
Online
7

Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; 205 CLR 166; 176 ALR 137; 75 ALJR 1 (16 November 2000).
2001. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2000/56.html>.
The doctrine of freedom of contract. 2017. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-doctrine-of-freedom-of-
contract.php>.
Principles of Australian contract law / John Gooley, Peter Radan, Ilija Vickovich. 2014.
[Online]. Available through :<https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/20135764?
selectedversion=NBD51835522>.
8