Analysis of Contractual Disputes: A Business Law Case Study

Desklib provides past papers and solved assignments for students. This assignment analyzes two business law case studies.

Business Law
Page | 1

Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3
Question 2........................................................................................................................................5
Reference.........................................................................................................................................7
Page | 2

Question 1
Issue
Is Ben is liable to claim that Mojo Beverage owes him $100,000?
Rule
As per the law of the provisions of the law of Australian contracts, it is important to have the
contractual formation, content, and scope of contracts, evasion of the contractual obligations,
presentation and termination of the contracts (Fried, 2015). According to the Australian Contract
Law, the implied terms can only be implemented if it is necessary to implement. There is a
various condition that needs to be satisfied as per the case of BP Refinery Pty Ltd V Hastings
Shire Council, 1977, where the court states that conditions must be reasonable and necessary to
enhance the business efficiency with clear expressions without saying anything and must not be
against the terms of the express contract.
According to the case of Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd V State Rail Authority of NSW, 1982,
where the court held that the oblique conditions of the contract has to be reasonable, impartial
and remain obvious without expressing its clear expressions and it is important that the
contractual terms and conditions must not be in contradiction itself (Pound & DeRosa, 2017).
Further, in accordance to the case of Con-Stan Industries V Norwich Winterthur Lts, 1986,the
court held that the implied contract is only applicable with its term if the customs relied upon the
contracts by showing the term implication of the contract is well known and must be agreed by
all the parties (Cooter & Ulen, 2016). Parties must not be assumed that the undecided terms will
be implied into the contracts or the parties remain unsure about the inference of the terms should
have been specifically included in the contract.
Applicability
As per the case in the given scenario, it dealing with contracting elements and principles. In this
case, the Mojo Beverages make changes in the offer on which the Ben is agreed but at the time
of execution of the contract Mojo Beverages implement the changes assert to be compensated for
Page | 3

the amount of $100,000. As per the case of BP Refinery Pty Ltd V Hastings Shire Council,
1977 and Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd V State Rail Authority of NSW, 1982, where court state
that the implied terms must not be against the contractual terms and conditions. In this case, Ben
has only reduced the price and all the other conditions of the contract remain unchanged. When
Ben is going to catch Lord Harry has certainly agreed to contract creation by considering the
essential requirements of the contracts. Ben is also entering into the legal relationship by
complying with all the legal formalities. The problem is arising when the contractual terms and
conditions change. As per the above-mentioned rule, the prize amount is only and other
conditions of the contract remain the same. Mojo Beverage enduring correct and legal and it is
the default on the Bern part as he engages in the contracts without reviewing the contractual
elements. The other people also want to catch Lord Harry as they are also aware of the facts that
are offered by the Mojo Beverage by implying that they communicate the terms and conditions.
With the above case law of Con-Stan Industries V Norwich Winterthur Lts, 1986, there was no
deficiency on Mojo’s part in carrying an appearance of the implied terms and its final
implementation has many participants that really express their consensual agreement. In this
regard, the person only fails to represent his or her actual intent to the party of the contracts. Ben
can be responsible for the customs of the terms of the contracts even despite the fact that he does
not have the information on it. Implied terms of the agreement can be bought under the scope of
the contracts which is based upon the custom.
Conclusion
As per the rule state above, it is concluded that it is important that the Mojo Beverage explains
Ben about his demand for claiming $100,000 is unsuitable and violate the condition of the
contracts. According to the conditions of the contracts advertisement execution it is considered to
be on the ground of custom. The terms of the Mojo Beverage contract is express or implied is
authenticated by the customs. Even when Ben takes notice of rumor which was true even then he
is not proceeding to the Mojo Beverage for the representation of the contract. Ben can also ask
the Mojo Beverage about the change in the terms and condition of the contract and develop the
Page | 4

understanding related to the contract. So, the Mojo beverage is only accountable to pay Ben
$1000 by explaining the contractual scope and its elements.
Question 2
Issue
Is Dorper Sheep was liable for the default for contract withdrawal?
Rule
As per the provisions of the Australian Contract Law, an agreement can only qualify as an
agreement when there is an offer, approval of the offer, the intention of the parties to form
contractual obligations, parties must be really capable and there must be lawful consideration
(Reimann & Zimmermann, 2019). For the valid contract, it is essential to fulfilling the necessary
fundamentals of the contract.
Beneath the contract, it is imperative that the parties must gain knowledge about their right and
liabilities in the contract. While the formation of the contract, it is an obligation to create legal
relations by fulfilling all the contractual requirements and capacity (Moorhouse, et. al., 2018). It
is important that the contract must be accepted within its validity period and its states that the
contract is revoked when the offer is rejected or revoked after the expiration of the stipulation
time or from the death of the parties or failure in any fulfillment of the contractual condition.
In the case of Philips V Life Insurance Co, Australia, 1925, where the court states that if any
uncertainty is happening during the process of negotiation and the uncertain time frame is not
enforceable (Grossman, 2018).
According to the case of Godecke V Kirwan, 1973 and the case of Commercial General
Investments Ltd V Machester Council, 1970), the court held that the while enacting the
financing contract the prices is the most important and essential terms of the contract (Dong,
2018).
Applicability
Page | 5

As per the case in the given scenario, Livestock Brokers and Dorper sheep sellers enter into the
negotiation for the sale of a number of sheep. As per the details present, Dorper sheep sellers
place its price and set a time limit for the confirmation of the Livestock Broker. In this, the
Livestock Broker does not succeed to recognize the contractual terms and request to get
clarification on the terms related to the finance. On this, Dorper Sheep not replying to the
Livestock but later on, subsequent to six months Livestock writes back to the Dorper Sheep
regarding the acceptance of the cost and shows the intention to purchase the flock. During this,
the time lapses and the strength of the contract are also expired. Due to this, the Dorper sheep
refuse for the offer. The offer is canceled by the Dorper sheep by the setting of the time. By
setting up the time it assists in setting the contract validation period. It states that the Livestock
Broker was in the greater consensus on the contractual terms with the Dorper Sheep. In
accordance with the case of (Coal Cliffs Collieries V Sijehama Pty Ltd, 1991) Dorper sheep
posses the negotiate right. Livestock Broker did not pursue their personal time to set the validity
of offer and responsible for not take action to the queries of the Livestock Broker. Even
following six months when Livestock Broker gives intimation about the acceptance of the
agreement price and there is no information from Dorper Sheep about the waving of the offer.
Livestock Broker sought for the clarification of the conditions of the essential price but the
Dorpers Scheepers puts the contract to be incomplete.
Conclusion
As per the above-discussed rule, the claim of the Livestock Broker is valid for the loss caused
due to Dorper sheep ignorant behavior towards the contract. Dorper Sheep deliberately withdraw
from the scope of the contract without any notification which makes him default.
In the second condition, if the Livestock Broker replied within the specifies a time frame and it
does not receive by the Dorper Sheeper due to any problem in the fax machine that the situation
is analysed as per the rule of the postal authorities. According to the case (Squires V Bressan,
1974), it states that the method of communication is not much as important until and unless it is
accepted in a specified manner. As per the detail mentioned in the given case, Livestock Broker
would have to be agreed and accepted the prices stated by the Dorper Sheep by following rules
of the postal authority.
Page | 6

Reference
 Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. (2016). Law and economics. Addison-Wesley.
 Dong, H. (2018). On Risk Bearing of the Sales Contract. Journal of US-China Public
Administration, 15(5), 216-220.
 Fried, C. (2015). Contract as promise: a theory of contractual obligation. Oxford
University Press, USA.
 Grossman, N. (2018). Teaching Contract Law, Terms, and Practice Skills Through
Problems. Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 20(2), 323.
 Moorhouse, B., McBarnet, D., Hunt, A. J., & Fryer, B. (2018). Law, State and Society.
Routledge.
 Pound, R., & DeRosa, M. L. (2017). An introduction to the philosophy of law. Routledge.
 Reimann, M., & Zimmermann, R. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford handbook of comparative
law. Oxford University Press.
Page | 7