Business Law Assignment: Contracts, Agency, Copyright, and Trade

This document presents a comprehensive solution to a business law assignment, addressing key legal concepts through five distinct questions. The assignment begins by examining contract formation in the context of domestic agreements, analyzing the intention of parties and the application of objective tests, as seen in cases like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Balfour v Balfour, to determine the enforceability of an agreement between Jennifer and her grandmother. The second question delves into contract formation, specifically the postal rule of acceptance and the requirement for a meeting of minds, contrasting the principles in Hyde v Wrench and Adams v Lindsell to determine the validity of a contract between Sanche and Richard. The third question focuses on agency law, assessing the liability of a principal (Kevin) for the actions of an agent (Ravi), considering apparent authority and the agent's adherence to or deviation from provided authority, referencing ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd. The fourth question addresses copyright law, exploring the rights of creators and the concept of infringement, particularly in the context of musical compositions, drawing on the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and the case of The Beach Boys vs. Chuck Berry to evaluate the actions of Trevor and Declan. Finally, the assignment concludes with an analysis of restraint of trade clauses, evaluating their reasonableness and enforceability, referencing Buckley v Tutty and Lloyd’s Ships Holdings Pty Ltd v Davros Pty Ltd to determine the validity of a clause imposed by Maddie on Clare.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................2
Question 2........................................................................................................................................3
Question 3........................................................................................................................................5
Question 4........................................................................................................................................6
Question 5........................................................................................................................................8
References......................................................................................................................................10

2BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue 1
Whether there has been a contract between Jennifer and her grandmothers despite the
complications of domestic agreements or not?
Rules
Whether a contract has been formed in relation to a domestic agreement is determined through
the analysis of the intentions of the parties to the agreement to establish a legally binding
relationship. Where there is intention between the parties the domestic subjective or objective the
agreement would be a contract which is binding legally. Where there is no intention between the
parties the agreement would be deemed as social agreement.
In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 the court ruled that a
person would be deemed to have an intention to bind another party to the contract if a reasonable
person would be induced by the expression to get into the contract.
Where there is a domestic relationship it is not presumed that a legally binding relationship exists
between the parties unless it is rebutted as it was in the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB
571. In this case it had been held by the court as there was no intention to create a legal
relationship between the parties there was no contract.
In the case of Simpkins v Pays [1955] there was a contract between a grandmother and a
granddaughter in relation to sharing of profits in a lottery. Through the application of the

3BUSINESS LAW
objective test it had been ruled by the court that where a reasonable person would deem any
expression as a legal offer there is intention of creating legally binding relationship.
Application
According to the above discussed rules it can be said that there is a valid agreement between
Jennifer and her grandmother which is legally binding on both of them. This is because the
relationship between the parties is not a purely domestic relationship. Upon the application of the
objective test it can be said that a reasonable person would be induced by the expression made by
the grandmother that she would be transferring her house if Jennifer moved to Mount Gambier to
get into a contract. In addition the consideration which has been provided in the contract is the
moving of Jennifer to Mount Gambier. She has also suffered significant losses for the move as
she had to quit her job and she could not find similar jobs in Mount Gambier. This means that it
would be unjustified if the contract is treated as a domestic agreement as it would cause immense
hardship to Jennifer
Conclusion
Therefore it can be concluded that Jennifer has a legally binding contract with her Grandmother.
Question 2
Issue
Whether there has been a contract between the parties with respect to the postal rule of
acceptance and meeting of minds (offer and acceptance)
Rule

4BUSINESS LAW
In the case of Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90 it had been ruled by the court that an
acceptance has to be accepted in a way which can be considered as unequivocal. This means that
an acceptance would only be completed when the offer has been accepted with the exact terms
which it contains. In situation where an additional or a contrary term is accompanied by the
acceptance it results in a counter offer. A counter offer has the effect of brining the original offer
to an end through the principles of rejection. This means that once a counter offer has been made
the original offer can no further be accepted.
In the case there had been sever correspondences and negotiations between the defendant and the
plaintiff but the offer was never actually accepted by the plaintiff in a legal manner. Thus the
court held that there is no contract between the parties and the claim of the plaintiff had been
rejected.
The postal rule of acceptance had been discussed in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B &
Ald 681. In this case the plaintiff had posted the letter of acceptance but it had not been received
by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that there is a contract between the parties. The court
ruled that as soon as the letter has been posted and had been correctly addressed it accounts for a
valid acceptance. It is irrelevant that it has when it has reached the plaintiff. In modern day
electronic transactions the acceptance is said to be made as per the Electronic Transactions Act
when the mail has reached the mailbox of the offeror.
Application
In the given situation it has been provided that an offer was made by Sanche to Richard for
purchasing his car at $60000. A message had been sent by Richard on 3rd February which was
not read by Sanche. Thus as per the above discussed rules of postal acceptance the acceptance is

5BUSINESS LAW
made. However the acceptance made by Richard is not unequivocal and therefore account to a
counter offer rejecting the initial offer. The acceptance which was made latter and was
unequivocal as it complied with the terms of the initial offer would not be a valid acceptance as
the initial offer ended as soon as the counter offer had been made via email irrespective of
whether it had been read by Sanche or not.
Conclusions
There is no contract between the parties
Question 3
Issue
The issue is to determine the position of the parties based on the principles of agency.
Rule
The provisions in relation to an agency prescribe that in a principal and agent relationship the
principal is liable for all the acts committed by the agent during the course of employment. Thus
any contract which the agent enters upon into on behalf of the principal with any third party is
binding on the principle (Zhou 2014).
In the case of ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd (2016) 339 ALR 242 it had been ruled by
the court that even where no authority has been provided by the principal to the agent or where
the agent has exceeded the authority provided to him by the principal the principal may still be
liable for the actions of the agent. This will take place where the agent had an apparent authority

6BUSINESS LAW
and the third party did not have the knowledge that the agent has exceeded or does not have
authority and relies upon such authority to get into a contract
Application
In the given situation it Ravi has been appointed by Kevin to manage the sale of his furniture.
This means that there is a principal agent relationship between Kevin and Ravi. However Kevin
has only provided authority to Ravi for selling an oak table for no less than $7000. Ravi sells the
table to Theresa for $6500 which was outside her authority. Although Theresa was did not know
that Kevin was the owner, she cannot make a claim directly from Ravi. This is because Kevin
had provided expressed authority to Ravi for selling the oak table. Under the principals of agency
Kevin would be liable to the contract which has been entered upon between Ravi and Theresa.
Therefore where Theresa wants to return the table because it is not up-to the standards she had
accepted she has to make a claim from Kevin as he is the actual owner of the table and Ravi was
a mere agent who was acting on behalf of Kevin.
Conclusion
Theresa has to make a claim against Kevin for returning the table and not Ravi
Question 4
Issue
To determine the position of the parties under the Copyright Law
Rule

7BUSINESS LAW
A Copyright is free and is created as soon as an original work is created by an author. The work
need not be registered or published for the purpose of being protected under the provisions of the
copyright laws. However copyright is only applicable on those works which are original and
have been given effect. An idea of a unique work cannot gain protection under the copyright
laws (Joyce et al. 2016).
In Australia the law of copyright is governed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). According to
section 31 of the act the creator of music is provided specific copyright in relation to the
reproduction of the work, publication of the work, communication of the work to the public and
to perform the work in public. According to section 32 of the Act the copyright exists to an
original dramatic, literary, artistic or musical work where the author is a qualified person which
means a citizen of Australia.
In the famous case of The Beach Boys vs. Chuck Berry (1963) the plaintiff had been provided
compensation as the defendant has violated the copyright of the plaintiff by using his
unpublished musical work without proper authorization from the plaintiff.
Application
In the given situation it has been provided that Trevor had composed a music using a software.
According to the above discussed laws a copyright has been provided to Trevor as soon as the
music has been composed by him and therefore Jack has the right to publication and use of such
composition all by himself. It has been provided in the scenario that Trevor had played the music
before it is given for publication in front of his friends. Declan, As per the facts of the case
copied the music and gave it for publication and thus infringed the copyright of Trevor. He made
huge profits through the composition. As discussed in the case of Beach Boys vs. Chuck Berry

8BUSINESS LAW
where a copyright is infringed the aggrieved party is entitled to compensation. Here the
copyright of Trevor can be said to be infringed as the composition which has been produced by
Declan is very identical to what had been composed by Trevor. Even if the work was not copied
the identical nature of the work would infringe the copyright of Trevor and make him entitled to
compensation.
Conclusion
Declan has to pay Trevor compensation for copyright infringement.
Question 5
Issue
The issue in this case is to determine whether the restraint of trade clause imposed by Maddie on
Clare is reasonable or not
On various occasion a restrictive covenant is imposed on an ex-employee for business interest.
According to such covenants the employee or any other person is restricted to carry on business
activities for a particular period or in a particular field. In order to be effective these covenants
have to be on the party on which they have been imposed (Bildfell 2015).
In the case of Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 at 380 it had been ruled by the court that
where an restraint imposed on a party is unreasonable it cannot be enforced by law as it is not in
the interest of public welfare to restrict a person unreasonably from earning a livelihood in
whatever lawful way chosen by him and also to deprive the public from his services unlawfully.

9BUSINESS LAW
Even where a person has signed the restraint clause the clause cannot be enforceable merely
because it has been signed. Where it is found that the clause is unreasonable the court would not
enforce the clause on the parties as provided in the case of Lloyd’s Ships Holdings Pty Ltd v
Davros Pty Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 505.
Application
In the given situation it has been provided that Maddie has imposed a restraint of tread clause on
Clare who has sold her business. It has been provided through the clause that Clare is not
allowed to carry on any trade in Adelaide for a period of 10 years. The agreement has been
signed by Clare. However she carried on a café which is not at all connected to the hair dressing
business in only one here. As per the above discussed rule the clause would not be enforceable
even if it has been signed where it is unreasonable in nature. Here to not allow Clare to do any
business that to for a period of 10 ten years cannot be justified as reasonable under any situation.
If the clause is enforced it would be unreasonably depriving Clare from making a lawful
livelihood. This the clause is unreasonable and cannot be enforced
Conclusion
No breach of contract has been committed by Clare as the clause was not reasonable.

10BUSINESS LAW
References
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353
Lloyd’s Ships Holdings Pty Ltd v Davros Pty Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 505.
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd (2016) 339 ALR 242
Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90
Joyce, C., Ochoa, T.T., Carroll, M.W., Leaffer, M.A. and Jaszi, P., 2016. Copyright law (p. 85).
Carolina Academic Press.
Zhou, Q., 2014. Limits of mandatory rules in contract law: An example in agency law. N. Ir.
Legal Q., 65, p.357.
Bildfell, C., 2015. The Case for Broadening the Ambit of Restraint of Trade and for Focusing on
Reasonableness. Alta. L. Rev., 53, p.681.