University Business and Corporation Law Case Study Analysis

This document presents a case study analysis of business and corporation law, focusing on two key scenarios. The first involves a contract dispute between Qantas Airlines Ltd and Airbus Corporation Limited, examining issues of contract formation, breach of contract, and the validity of exclusion clauses. The analysis considers legal principles such as offer and acceptance, warranty, and damages for breach of contract. The second scenario involves a shop owner, Frank, and his employees, Gemma and Bob, dealing with issues of misrepresentation. The analysis explores fraudulent misrepresentation, agency, and the liabilities of the parties involved, including the impact of employee actions on the employer. Relevant case laws are cited to support the arguments and legal positions of the parties involved.

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Business and Corporation Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Rules............................................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4
Question 2........................................................................................................................................5
Issue.............................................................................................................................................5
Rules............................................................................................................................................5
Application..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................7
Reference.........................................................................................................................................8

2BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Question 1
Issue
According to the case study the issue is arise about the what steps would be Qantas
Airlines Ltd will take for the legal positions where they make the contract with Airbus
Corporation Limited?
Rules
According to the case study the Qantas Airlines Ltd signed a contract with Airbus
Corporation Limited for building a new airplane therefore in this matter both of them hat agreed
with the legal bindings and one party has make the offer the other party is accept the contract. In
the case of smith and hugs the it has been found where the both of the parties has legally blind
with offer and acceptance as per the terms of contract (McKendrick & Liu, 2015).
The case of Smith v Hughes the court has found that the parties have accept the offer
according to the terms of the contract. In the case of Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon
Paull Partners Pty where the court has found that the parties has legally binding in a contract
where they do not have any knowledge about the terms of contract however it make the contract
valid. Therefore it can be said that according to the terms of contract an offer and acceptance is
one of the important part or terms of the contract where party must make a mutual consideration
and sell it legal objects and must have the real intention to from the contract (McKendrick & Liu,
2015).
Therefore according to the case study the L’Estange v Graucob terms of contract has
been made where a condition is also made and as per the condition the parties failed to accept the

3BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
terms of conditions in the contract then it will we reach the contract where the parties will fail to
deposit the contract for the innocent Party Can claim the damages due to the breach of the
contract (Andrews, 2015). Warranty is another contact each me KN significance as per the terms
but it is provided by the aggrieved party who will provide a certain time for the application of the
contract and if it is breached then everybody will bound to pay the compensation to the innocent
party. Therefore that damages in contract for you to the breach the terms of contract make the
damage in the contract law therefore if it is and the identified that the aggrieved party has not
able to satisfy the terms of contract and due to breach of the contract the Innocent party has faced
any damage therefore the aggrieved party will bound to pay the compensation for the damages
which occurred by them (McKendrick & Liu, 2015). In the case of Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v
Bowen Investments Pty Ltd it has been found that the aggrieved party is found to liable for
violet the terms of contract where it has provided the warranty and the condition. Therefore
innocent party has suffered damage and they claim for the compensation (Andrews, 2015).
Application
According to the case study the issue has identified about the legal position of the
contract where the Qantas Airlines Ltd has made the contract with Airbus Corporation Limited
therefore it is necessary to determine the contractual terms of that agreement which has been
made between two airlines company as per the case study the contract has formed with the
mutual consideration according 545 terms it is incorporated with the agreement (McKendrick &
Liu, 2015). Therefore one party has made the offer and another party accept the terms where it is
clear both of the airline companies has no the conditions of offer and acceptance which are
mentioned in the agreement now the according to the signed contract airbus send to Qantas
Airlines Ltd package containing a large number of documents which includes the contract itself

4BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
and examples of the color scheme which will be used. Therefore there is another part in that
contract about the limitation of liability which includes that if the Airbus Corporation Limited
has made any breach of the terms as per the Contract then they will be liable to kept at $30,000
to the Qantas Airlines Ltd. As this Toms has been mentioned in the agreement therefore the duty
has lies for the here this that the mentioned exclusion clause must be get to the knowledge of
Qantas Airlines Ltd (Andrews, 2015). Therefore the close of exclusion is not made under the
notice where the Qantas Airlines Ltd will be part of this clause when the contact has been made
it is necessary that both of the parties will know about every terms and conditions and queries.
Now as the Qantas Airlines Ltd has no knowledge about such notice which was placed to them
through a big box so the contract is not satisfied the terms which are legally invalid (McKendrick
& Liu, 2015).
Now as per the contract the engineers of Airbus limited has wrongly installed wrong
entertainment system where they required of 36 systems they have installed only 34 systems
which has been not made according to the contract. Therefore they already breach the contract
due to the dissatisfaction of the terms of contract now the Qantas Airlines Ltd is suffering for the
mistake by Airbus and they can required for the compensation (McKendrick & Liu, 2015).
Conclusion
According to the terms of contract the Airbus has breach the terms of the contract
therefore the Qantas Airlines Ltd has right to claim the compensation from Airbus for the breach
of the contract (Andrews, 2015).

5BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Question 2
Issue
According to the case study the issue will arise about the legal positions which have faced Frank
according to the scenario of the case study.
Rules
As per the case study Frank who is the owner of the shop has fired Bob who used to drink
whole day and join the workplace every day late. Therefore Frank has fired him. However when
Bob used a false way to collect money by using the Frank’s shop bank account and using his
appliances from his sir and fail to delivery at the customer Angela who transfer the money and
want to convert who has want to take legal actions against him. As Frank has no knowledge
about such miss representation before the issue is arise when FSrank is liable to pay the amount
back or supply the appliances to the customer (McKendrick, 2014).
It is a case of misrepresentation of facts was the parties has been entered in a contract
with the legal binding agreement without knowing the true facts and form the contract as per the
basis of false statement. Therefore it is a misrepresentation. In the case of Bisset v Wilkinson
[1927] it has been found that the plaintiff is made a contract agreement with the defendant as per
the basis of false or misrepresentation where it carries the legal value of the contract but the
intention of the defendant has misconducts. Therefore the case has been found illegal and fail to
bind to the contract (McKendrick, 2014). In the case of Smith v Land & House Property Corp
(1884) the misrepresentation has been found in the desirable tenant where the defendant has
agreed in the contract to buy the hotel but later it was been found that the tenant was bankrupt.
Therefore the defendant is failed to complete the contract and the plaintiff has sued the defendant

6BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
as for the failure of specific performance. In the case of Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) the
court of appeal has found that the intention of the statement in the contract is established the
misrepresentation where the plaintiff was bound to entitled to signed the contract and the
defendant make the promise to complete the contract but intention was illegal. The difference
between the misrepresentation and puffery make the legal value of the contract where the
property defines as a self evident acceleration which was not appropriate to used for the purpose
of advertising (McKendrick, 2014). It is important that misrepresentation must applied by a party
of the contract where a false statements is necessary to relate on the other party who will be
affected. In the Hill v Rose [1990] case the court has found that the innocent party who enters
into the contract but later it has been found that the statement is made on the basis of false or
misrepresentation towards the party (Butler, et al. 2013).
Therefore applying the misrpresentation there must be an agency who will be the
principal and bound to perform on behalf of the authority and the authority not always provide
the power to the agent where the third party is involved to work according to the agent but there
is a relation between the agent and principal in the miss presentation (Butler, et al. 2013). In the
case of Watteau v Fenwick [1983] the court has found that the authority is never allowed to
provide any relation with the agent and the principal is need to exist and the third party must
enter into that contract where they only depend upon the agent who works behalf of the principal
(McKendrick, 2014).
Application
According to the case study Gemma is employed under Frank where she knows about the
price of dishwasher and makes a third party involvement to sale the dishwasher to her niece. She
has knowledge that dishwasher could be sale in $350. However, when Gemma want to sell the

7BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
dishwasher, Frank authorized her to sell that on $300 as per the basis of misrepresentation. Now
when Tom is the customer who wants to buy the dishwasher in $350, he has found it has already
sold in $300. Therefore Frank is misrepresentation ha occur by Gemma where Frank was
informed with wrong information. Here it can be stated that Gemma has made the fraudulent
misrepresentation towards Frank where he could gain the more profit by selling the dishwasher.
Now Frank can claim the compensation of $50 from Gemma for committing the fraudulent
misrepresentation with Frank to sell the dishwasher in $300 instead of $350 (McKendrick,
2014).
Now as per the Bob’s activity he was also a sales representative in Frank’s shop where
Bob has make negotiating frequently misrepresentation with Frank. While Frank has fired him
for became drunk at the time of work. Therefore there is no liability for Frank about the activities
of Bob. Bob made a contract with Angela who wants to buy washing machines for her
commercial laundries and she made a contract to buying of 10 washing machines for a price of
$1,000 for each (Butler, et al. 2013). She transferred the money in the home appliance bank
account. Here Angela and Frank both of them do not have any knowledge about the situation
where Angela don’t know about that Frank has already fired Bob and where Frank has not make
any contract with her while selling the washing machine. Therefore in this matter Frank only
liable to make the claim from the damages against Bob (McKendrick, 2014).
Conclusion
Therefore as per the case studies both Gemma and Bob has fraudulently
misrepresentation against Frank and Gemma and Bob both has bound to pay the damage
compensation towards Frank on the terms of fraudulent misrepresentation of contract.

8BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Reference
Andrews, N. (2015). Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
Butler, D., Christensen, S., Willmott, L., & Dixon, B. (2013). Contract Law Case Book.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 527
Hill v Rose [1990] VR 129
L’Estange v Graucob (1923) 2KB 394
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
McKendrick, E., & Liu, Q. (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith v Hughes Court of Queen's Bench [1871] LR 6 QB 597
Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8
Watteau v Fenwick [1983] 1 QB 346