Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation Case Study: Law Assignment

This case study analyzes a breach of contract scenario where Anglo made misrepresentations to Barry, inducing him to enter a contract. The assignment explores the application of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) Section 18, focusing on misrepresentation in pre-contractual statements regarding turnover, competitors, and business expenses. The analysis examines the materiality and reliance aspects of the misrepresentations, determining whether they were sufficient to render the contract voidable. The study delves into the remedies available to Barry, including rescission and damages, and references relevant case laws such as Ellul and Ellul v Oakes and Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. Ultimately, the assignment concludes with a discussion on the legal actions Barry can take to address the breach of contract, emphasizing the potential for compensation and contract cancellation.

Name of the student
Topic-
University Name

Question 2:
Issue:
Is there any possible actions are
available to Barry in context of
breach of contract under the
misrepresentation made by Anglo?

Detail of the Case study:
As per section 18 of the Australian
consumer law, if any of the parties
contradict the pre-contractual
statements then it will result to
breach of Australian consumer law
and he has to face the penalties
and charges given under act

Continued…..
Case law Ellul and Ellul v Oakes, (1972) 3
SASR 377, Supreme Court of South
Australia. Ellul and Ellul v Oakes, (1972) 3
SASR 377, Supreme Court of South Australia.
Form contract, it is necessary to enter into
contract in written and add all the terms and
condition which parties to contracts think fit.
 It must be ensured that intention to create
legal relation between parties
As per the case law given, the case given in
the case could be understood in better.

Continued…
It is called prima facia evidence for
conducting such representation was
intended as warranty under the contract.
The misrepresentation of the contract
covers the following details.
Materiality- Material in nature which
misrepresentation made by party to
another
Rely- One party relies on the
misrepresentation made by one party to
another

Continued…
In the present case, Angelo makes
different pre-contractual statements in
regards of turnover of the statement,
competitors, expenses of the business,
and also about crowd. However, after
signing the contract Barry found all
these statements false. In this case,
Angelo breach section 18 of the ACL as
he makes different misrepresentation
under this scenario, and this can be
judge on the basis of two factors:

Continued…
Materiality- misrepresentation made by party
must be material in nature, which means it
must induced the reasonable person to enter
into the contract. In the present case, Angelo
induces the Barry to enter into the contract
on the basis of his misrepresentation.
Therefore, misrepresentations made by
Angelo are material in nature.
Reliance- Misrepresented must rely on the
misrepresentation made by
misrepresentation. Barry relies on the
misrepresentation made by Angelo.

Continued….
Case could be voidable and canceled
by one party to another.
Judge could validate the contract as
per its own discretion.
Angelo attempts to make different
pre-contractual statements for the
turnover of the statement, expenses
of business and competitors.
This contract is voidable at the Barry
being aggrieved party.

Continued….
Signing of contract was covered
under the misrepresentation
Case of Museprime Properties
v Adhill Properties [1990] 36
EG 114
If party induce another party on
the basis of false facts and
document which induce other
part to enter into contract then
the entered contract would be

Question 3:
Issue:
How Barry could take action to
breach the contract?
Representation made by one party
to another and entered into the
contract then that contract would
be voidable.
There are two parts
Rescission
Damages

Detail:
Contract could be voidable on the
basis of two factors:
Rescission
Damages

Two base to cancel the contract
He (Anglo) acted unfair
One party was unaware about
the misrepresentation