Business Law Report: Case Studies on Contract, Agency, and Negligence

This report is a comprehensive analysis of several business law case studies, focusing on key legal principles and their practical applications. The report begins with an introduction that provides a general overview of the cases which include contract law, agency, and negligence. The cases involve scenarios such as breach of contract, agency relationships, and acts of negligence. Each case is analyzed using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion), providing a structured approach to legal problem-solving. The report explores issues like the validity of non-binding agreements, director liability, the responsibilities of agents, and the consequences of negligence. The conclusion summarizes the key findings and legal principles discussed in the report, offering insights into how Australian law addresses business disputes and legal responsibilities. The report also includes a detailed list of references to academic books and journals supporting the analysis.

Business law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Question-1...................................................................................................................................1
Question-2 ..................................................................................................................................2
Question-3...................................................................................................................................3
Question-4...................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES:...............................................................................................................................5
Books And Journals:...................................................................................................................5
.........................................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
The report mentioned below is a brief amalgamation of case laws which are relevant to
laws, which are related to day to day life consequences. Here the file is relevant to section of law
such as contract, breach, employee company relationship(Allen, 2017)
Question-1
Issue: In matter Tina made verbal conversation with Jeff for purchasing his business,
most of business credentials like, trademark, all employee's were passed on to Tina and
negotiations were made. An agreement contract was prepared by Jeff and sent to Tina, after
reading the agreement she declined to buy his company.
Relevant Act: According to norms mentioned in the laws and acts of Australian legal
heads and agreement act, clearly defines heads of agreement to be a non binding agreement. It is
just an memorandum to explain details which shall be mentioned in contract agreement. On the
base of MOU one cannot legally drag to court room or any other legal division.
Analysis: This means that any person who has just signed heads of agreement form is not
legally bind to any contractual agreement since, its a non-legal document. As defined in
guideline in contract law of Australia, any person who is bound to buy any business but has not
signed agreement contract(Blair, and Stout, 2017). Under Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900, which is the constitution of Australia, under which no illegal act is
performed.
In the following IRAC method will be followed to solve case law of Jeff vs. Tina:
Part-a
Conclusion: In the case of jeff vs tina, where jeff claimed to sue tina in case of breach of
contract on basis of signing heads of agreement, which is a non binding contract and cannot be a
proof to file a lawsuit against tine. Here tina has free will to reject any clause of action in case of
certain conditions.
Part-b
Conclusion: the conclusion would remain the same even if the agreement had clause
which stated that“Tina obtaining suitable finance”. This does not change the fact that MOU is a
non binding agreement form which does not give Jeff any power to sue Tina, plus even if any
1

clause is mentioned(Cameron and Pagnattaro, 2017). She did not attain any of it so legally she is
clean an Jeff has no case.
Question-2
Issue: Phil being the director of LightsBright Pty Ltd, made a order with CheepCheep
Pty Ltd on behalf of his company, after delivery the money was not received and the
CheepCheep Pty Ltd is liquidating due to increase in massive debts now, after liquidation the
company refused to pay back the debt.
Relevant Act: here the matter of fact its the contract breech between two companies
being commenced in the business Here failure of non payment even after liquidation of company
should be conducted as a crime and a lawsuit shall be conducted according to contract
agreement act.
Analysis: in this case creditor company is liable to receive all the money they invested
and the debtor is liable to pay according to contract & agreement act.
In the following case law IRAC method is used:
Conclusions: In the following, IRAC method will be followed to solve the case.
A) Phil, the managing director of LightsBright Pty Ltd be held personally liable for
unpaid debt: Phil cannot be held liable for paying the debts owned by cheepcheep, since he was
only fulfilling his duty. Decision taken were in good faith of company which gives no legal
clause, to any person to seek money from phil, in deal between chhepcheep and lightsbright pvt.
According to Corporations Act one cannot be held liable in such cases(Epstein, 2018) .
B) Robert, the managing director of CheepCheep Pty Ltd be held personally liable for
remaining unpaid debt: Any person who made deal and is held for breach of contract is liable to
pay for debts due to non payment of a work or service of company. Since the company is
liquidating all money should be paid to its creditors. In case of non payment of debt Phil the
managing director of lights-bulb pvt can file a law suit against them.
C) ‘business judgement rule’ relevancy to either Phil or Robert: Business judgement rule
is a liberal matter which protects directors of company from being liable for any decision taken
by them. These decisions are in good faith for company, for which they shall not face any sort of
abuse, or challenge their decisions in court. In this scenario, Phil the managing director of
2

lightsbulb pvt. Is covered by such rule, which clearly provides him clear protection in case of any
personal lawsuit.
Question-3
Issue: Francis being a music fan appointed rick to bring her three merchandise of the
band” kisses” foe which she gave him $25,000. he went to buy these from Allan who sold them
in $32000 plus one more deal of another band “Status Quo” which she did not mention him.
Now Allaneeks his money and Francis refuses to pay (Hansmann and Kraakman, 2017).
Relevant Act: This portrays the relationship between agent and principle. Also code of
ethics by agent, plus it will include who is liable to pay and responsibility will be decisded.
Analysis: here , since Francis has appointed rick to deal on her behalf she is liable to pay
for merchandises from the band “ kisses” but the other deal which was not made by her, she is
not liable for it. In case of other deal rick is responsible to pay Allen being breach of his duty as
an agent.
Part-A
Conclusions:
a) Allan can enforce the contract for the three Kiss items with Francis.
Here Allan is liable to get paid by Francis since, according to him Rick was agent who
was speaking on her behalf, made a deal with him by which being principle”Francis” is liable to
pay in this contract. Here the principle agreement contract is applied where in case any person
who appoints an agent is liable to complete decision taken by agent.
b) Francis is bound to go ahead with the contract to purchase the Status Quo albums from Allan,
and the consequences for Rick if Francis is not bound to the purchase.
In case where principle agent condition involves, its very specifically mentioned their
that what the principle asked for is bound for. In this Francis did not ask rick to purchase
merchandise of other band and make deal for it. In this scenario rick is liable for giving money to
Allan. Since, here Rick broke the principle agent relationship and make contract.
Part-B
Francis is bound to go ahead with the contract to purchase the Status Quo albums from Allan,
and the consequences for Rick if Francis is not bound to the purchase(Heminway, 2017)
3

In this case Francis is not bound to buy merchandise of other band since, she did not
mention her agent rick to do so, and liability of payment of those will be on rick. Rick being
liable to be bound to pay for the other three merchandises, since he broke the principle nature of
agent and did not full-fill his duty towards Francis(Raz, 2017).
Question-4
Issue: Prue, a model ordered a gown for an event from RuPeter, but wearing the dress
caused her bad rashes in her body, which made her loss her contract, allergy left marks which
caused permanent marks plus she lost her job as a model.
Relevant Act: Here there is a clear act of negligence by RuPeter, due to which Prue, has
to go through such harassment and monetary loss.
Analysis: Here, the person shall be to be clear with negligence act, plus she should claim
all her loss from RuPeter.
Conclusions:
a) Whether she can take any legal action against Gladrags, RuPeter’s business and/or the Bilton
Hotel: In this case it is clearly an act of negligence by RuPeter, since his act of such blunder the
model, prue got damaged on monetary and phisically terms. She can claim her money of hospital
fom gladrags. Adding to that she can also claim money which she has lost due to unfull-fillment
of her contract including ruining her goodwill in market because of getting allergy from wearing
the dress by RuPeter,.
(b) assuming she is successful in an action, what damages she is able to claim: In this case Prue,
can claim all monetary loss she has gone through due to wearing dress made by Ru-Peter, plus
she can claim him for act of negligence including her hospital bills, losses due to losing contracts
and destroying her goodwill in market field(Scheuerman, 2017)..
Conclusion
In the report mentioned many legislative principles and contract acts of Australia, have been
made clear and briefly explained with help of case laws. This report consist 4 scenarios with
issues and disputes among people. All the case laws are completed with the help of IRAC legal
reasoning method, which helps in understanding different circumstances on legal basis. The
4

government of Australia has provided several laws and regulations to protect its citizens. This
report will bifurcate different circumstances and their legal perspective of issue, dispute and legal
resolutions.
REFERENCES:
Books And Journals:
Allen, W. T., 2017. Our schizophrenic conception of the business corporation. In Corporate
Governance. (pp. 79-99). Gower.
Blair, M. M. and Stout, L. A., 2017. A team production theory of corporate law. In Corporate
Governance. (pp. 169-250). Gower.
Cameron, E. A. and Pagnattaro, M. A., 2017. Beyond millennials: Engaging generation Z in
business law classes. Journal of Legal Studies Education. 34(2). pp.317-324.
Epstein, R. A., 2018. A Common Law for the First Amendment. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y. 41. p.1.
Hansmann, H. and Kraakman, R., 2017. The end of history for corporate law. In Corporate
Governance. (pp. 49-78). Gower.
Heminway, J. M., 2017. Shareholder wealth maximization as a function of statutes, decisional
law, and organic documents. Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 74. p.939.
Raz, J., 2017. The rule of law and its virtue. In The Rule of Law and the Separation of
Powers. (pp. 77-94). Routledge.
Scheuerman, W. E., 2017. Economic Globalization and the Rule of Law 1. In Constitutionalism
and Democracy. (pp. 437-460). Routledge.
5