Legal Analysis: Contract, Agency, Torts, and Consumer Law Principles

This assignment solution delves into various aspects of contract and consumer law, analyzing key legal principles through case studies and relevant legislation. Task 1 focuses on contract law, agency, and remedies for breach of contract, examining issues such as contract formation, breach, and available remedies like damages. Task 2 explores the law of torts, specifically negligence, and defenses to negligence, including the Civil Liability Act 2002 and the concept of duty of care. The assignment uses the case of Ralph v. Rajesh to demonstrate the application of these principles. Task 3 addresses contracts, the contents of contracts, express and exclusion clauses, and the Competition and Consumer Act (CTH) 2010, including the Australian Consumer Law, misleading and deceptive conduct, and false representations. The solution references relevant case law, legislation, and legal principles to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The solution provides an in-depth analysis of the legal issues, rules, and applications to the given scenarios, providing well-reasoned conclusions.

APPLY LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN
CONTRACT AND CONSUMER
LAW

Table of Contents
TASK 1: CONTRACT/ AGENCY AND REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT............3
TASK 2: LAW OF TORTS – NEGLIGENCE / DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE........................5
TASK 3: CONTRACTS/CONTENTS OF CONTRACT/EXPRESS CLAUSES/EXCLUSION
CLAUSES/ COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT (CTH) 2010/THE AUSTRALIAN
CONSUMER LAW/MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT/FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS....................................................................................................................7
TASK 6: PERSONAL PROPERTY/LICENSES/LEASES/RESIDENTIAL
TENANCIES/STATUTORY PROTECTIONS..............................................................................9
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................11

TASK 1: CONTRACT/ AGENCY AND REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT
Issue:
In this case the issues is raised with the Mario regarding making contract with every
parties in context of organizing the wedding of his daughter Desdicata. In respect of planning the
big fat wedding for his daughter, Desdicata she ap porches to Sydney Luxury Food Pty. Ltd and
make an agreement regarding ordering 4 course meals for 400 people and also arrange the drinks
for $70,000. In context of booking the hall, she than further approaches to the Strathfield hall
limited in which the seating of at-least 450 guests are held and also carries the good dancing hall
with excellent kitchen facilities. So the deal is finalized and contract is made with the Andreas
regarding the events which is happened on 30th November 2018. Further Mario also entered into
the contract with the Fergie Big Jazz band for $10,000 to make the wedding successful. After
making the contract with all the parties such as Sydney Luxury Food Pty. Ltd, Strathfield hall
limited and Fergie Big Jazz band, the wedding is to be organized on the set date. But in this case
the breach is examined regarding carrying the booking on the 7the Dec instead of 30th Nov.
Rules:
Under the contract law, it refers to the promise which is made between the parties
regarding entering into any contract and thus parties are legally binding by the norms and
regulation imposed by the government (Poole, J., 2016). As all agreement are formed to be the
contract but all contract are not agreement and thus in respect of entering into any agreement,
one party offer some valuable things to another party and the other person accepts such offer.
They enter into the agreement in exchanges of some consideration.
In context of breach committed by any of the person, they are liable to avail various
remedies which are designated under the contract law such as damages or undertaking any
specific performances. Damages is mainly undertaken by the parties when they face financial
losses regarding entering into any contract (Graziano, T.K., 2019). The breach is also resulting in
the term when the person faces losses regarding not fulfilling their enjoyment or faces any
distress or upset or frustration regarding not attaining the work as per the set instruction. Thus,
all the parties who are liable for any breaches are to be compensated under the contracts Review
Act, 1980.

In case of D. Baltic shipping v Dillon High court of Australia (1993) CLR 344 in this
case, the issue which is raised by Mrs Joan Dillon that she booked the ship on the particular date
and after travelling on that ship, the ship sank and which results in loss of some valuable things.
Mrs. Dillon file the complaint against the losses of the personal injury which results in
demanding compensation for the losses incurred (Baltic Shipping v Dillon, 2018). The judgement
is raised in favour of the Dillon regarding getting liable to get damages for the actual losses
incurred.
Application:
By referring this case study to this similar case of Mario which faces financial losses
regarding committing breach by the Strathfield hall limited in respect of wrong booking of the
dates. In this complaint is file by the Dillion regarding facing losses in respect of not fulfilling
the contract, similarly in case of Mario, they face issues in respect of personal losses of
$1,000,000. Under the contract reviews act, 1980, the damages are to be paid to the parties if
they face any such loses and also their personal rights are affected regarding not fulling of the
contract (Smits, J.M. ed., 2017). Thus, under the contract law, in this Mario entered into the
contract with three parties on the bases of fair terms but the breach is committed by Strathfield
hall limited regarding miscommunication of the wedding dates. The judgement which is given in
the stipulated cases can be referred to the present case regarding demanding actual losses which
is suffered by the plaintiff and thus it is the duty of the opposite party to pay damages for the
losses incurred (Beale and et.al., 2019).
Conclusion:
By examining the above study regarding the situation of Mario, he can apply the
mitigation to losses principles, in which the partiers can take reasonable action to minimize the
losses which they gain regarding undertaking any activity. Mario can also claim the damages
under the contract law regarding loss of happiness and enjoyment as he mainly wants to have his
daughter, a big fact wedding. But due to breach committed by Strathfield hall limited, the
enjoyment is not longer sustain in his life. Thus, he can also claim for the damages under this
breach. Thus, in such aspects, Mario can claim for damages around $750,000 after mitigating the
losses. They can apply to the Local court in which the suit is filed regarding getting
compensation in respect of awards of damages for the losses incurred. If the decision is not
appropriate or not fulling their needs, they can apply to the intermediates courts and then to the

supreme courts for further accurate decisions. Thus, inj this case the jurisdiction which the local
court stated for the amount of $100,000 only.
TASK 2: LAW OF TORTS – NEGLIGENCE / DEFENCES TO
NEGLIGENCE
Issue:
In this case the issues is examined regarding the duty of negligences. As the case is
between the Ralph V Rajesh. The deal is made by the Ralph regarding not carrying any such
shooting activity of the kangaroo in the four wheel cabin vehicle and by this condition he agreed
to drive the vehicle. But after having so many warning, the Rajesh put the gun inside the vehicle
and playing with it. But simultaneously the gun discharged and bullet went through Ralph leg.
Ralph files the case under the Tort of negligent regarding giving continuous warning to the
Rajesh still he not listens to him and do such activity. But on the other hand Rajesh, claims that
the incident happens by mistake and as there is no such motive to commit any such crime.
Rules:
Under the Civil liability Act, 2002 this is mainly enacted in respect of facing any such
issues under the torts of negligences which is mainly occurred through careless activity
committed by the defendant (POOLE, Devenney and Shaw-Mellors, 2019). Thus, civil liability
indicates that if the person by mistaken or intentionally injures any person or cause damages to
their property, than they are liable to be charged under the civil liability act. It is describes under
the following section such as under:
Section 5J: This section is mainly described under the recreational activity in which the
dangerous activity such as sports or any other activity which is carried under the enjoyment or
leisure. Thus, in this risk are to be assumed if they are charged of enjoyment but not harming any
person or animals.
Section 5K: It refers to the dangerous recreational activity in which the significant risk of
physical harm is undertaken.
Section 5L: This section provides that the person which not be held liable for any such crime
which is mentioned under the dangerous recreational activity. As this is subject to the risk which
is occurred from the obvious reasons.

Under the law of torts or negligence, it is stated that negligences occurs when one person
wilfully neglect their duty which they had to commit in respect of securing the rights of the
person. It carries four major elements such as:
Duty of care: In this case, defendant carry some duty against the plaintiff regarding taking care
of the needs and also fulfilling them to maintain their interest in longer way. Thus, duty is to be
maintained in respect of knowing with the facts that adequate duty is to be provided to protect
the interest of plaintiff.
Breach of duty: Breach is undertaken when defendant familiar with the risk but not disclosed to
the plaintiff with the accurate situation.
Causation: In this case, the plaintiff had to proved that defendant commits such crime in wilful
manner and thus the injury happens to them.
Remoteness of damages: After proving the torts of negligence against the defendant, he is liable
to pay damages for the actual losses incurred to the plaintiff.
It is supported with the relevant case of Fallas V Mourlas in which the fall's accidentality
shot his friend Mourlas during driving the vehicle while shooting the Kangaroos. As after having
so much warning by the plaintiff regarding not taking the gun in the car still the plaintiff take the
gun and spotlight on kangaroos for shooting them (“Dangerous Recreational Activity and
Materialisation of an Obvious Risk”: Fallas -v- Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32, 2020). As in
respect of shooting the kangaroo, he coincidently shot the Mourlas and thus he is injured. The
judgement is made by the judge in respect of carrying liability under the torts of negligence but
the defendant is not held liable to pay damages under the section 5L of the civil liability act,
2002.
Application:
By applying this case to the relevant case which is examined that the torts of negligences
are stated in context of Rajesh regarding not taking duty of care after receiving so many warning
from the Ralph. Similar with this case as Mourlas are imposing certain restriction upon the Fallas
in context of not putting gun in the car or not spotlighting upon the kangaroos. But the act which
is committed by the Fallas regarding causing significant harm to Mourlas are not liable to be
punishable under the civil liability act (Howells, Ramsay and Wilhelmsson, 2018). Thus, it is
examined that the kangaroo shooting is the dangerous recreational activity which is liable for the
cause of negligent if any person cause harm during any of the process. By applying the act under

the civil liability Act related to the Division 4 that no act is undertaken to be wrong if it is done
without any willingness. But in this case the kangaroo shooting refers to the recreational activity
until such crime is to be committed at the midnight or carrying the spotlight to harm any animals.
Conclusion:
From the above study, the report conclude that the Rajesh is held negligent under the law
of tort as they carry the liability regarding securing the right of the person but due to not
undertaking the warning in positive manner, he shot the Ralph legs. Thus, under the law of torts,
he is liable to pay damages to the Ralph in context of facing injuries. But in relation to matter
described under the section 5J, all the three persons are not experiences in any of the shooting
aspect and thus if any risk arises than it results in breach in any of the terms. In the case of
Section 5K, they commit the dangerous recreation activity but not carry any such spotlight to
harm any Kangaroos, than they are not negligent under these sections. But under section 5L, the
defendant is not liable to be penalized under the obvious risk but in this case, Ralph continuously
warning Rajesh to not use the gun inside the car, but he didn't listen to them. Thus, the claim
relating to negligent are proved under this section and also they are liable to compensated for the
actual losses incurred to the Ralph. Thus, by applying section 5K, 5F and 5L, Rahesh is liable
under the civil liability which result in affecting the right of the Ralph and also liable to be
compensated for the losses incurred.
TASK 3: CONTRACTS/CONTENTS OF CONTRACT/EXPRESS
CLAUSES/EXCLUSION CLAUSES/ COMPETITION AND
CONSUMER ACT (CTH) 2010/THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER
LAW/MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT/FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS.
Issue:
In this case the issue is raised with the Pamela regarding facing damages which is
attained by the Ben through driving recklessly. The incident is happened under the Park Ltd.
which is one of the type of the car parking station mainly designed for the consumer to park their
vehicle. In respect of terms and condition mentioned in the contract, it clearly indicates that the
Park Ltd. is not liable for any such damages which is incurred by any of the person in the

premises. As the company is liable to pay compensation to any of the party in context of injury
provided by others.
Rules:
Under the Australian consumer law, in which the schedule 2 to the consumer and
competition act, 2010 are liable to imposed to protect the rights of the consumer regarding facing
any such injuries. This contract mainly comes into existences when the plaintiff faces any such
damages through the unfair terms mentioned in the contract or the other party not working as per
the set norms mentioned in the contract (Howells and Wilhelmsson, 2017). Consumer is such
person who purchase goods and services from the business and in return pay money to deal with
such terms mentioned in the contract.
Section 18: Under this section, it indicates the matters related to misleading or deceptive under
the trade and commerce activities. This section mainly applied in respect of misleading any
person in respect of providing the wrong quality products or dealing in unlawful services.
Section 29: It stated that the misleading and deceptive information resulting in giving rise to the
criminal offences which are punishable under the criminal act (Kerber, 2016).
This is explained with the case related to the Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline
Australia Pty Ltd (2006) ATPR 42-106 in which the issues are raised regarding the unfair trade
practices which is undertaken in the context of advertisement (Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v
GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd, 2020). Thus, in such manner, the judgement is raised
regarding providing relief to the parties which right are violated in any of the terms mentioned
under the contract.
Application:
By applying this case study, in the present case scenario, it is examined that the under the
section 3 of the competition and consumer Act, 2010 consumer are such person who are
purchasing goods or services from the business for the amount of $40,000.00 or less. It is also
stated from the rules of law that under the competition and consumer Act, 2010 the services are
also liable to be categorized if they are not performed and violated by any of the business
(Helberger, Borgesius and Reyna, 2017). By understanding the relevant case, it is also examined
that exclusion clause is considered to be void under the competition consumer act, 2010 as in this
the liability of the consumer regarding providing guarantee on particular products cannot be
excluded. In this present case, the breach is made on the services which the park Ltd. is offering

to their customer (Pearce and Pinto, 2018). Thus, they are liable to be penalized under section 60
which states that guarantee under the due care and skills and under section 61 stated that
guarantee that fits for the particular purpose. Section 62 described about the reasonable time the
supply is to be certain and section 63 is related to the services which is provided by the business
to their customers (Lima, 2018). Thus, by this aspect, various provision for services are applied
under the competition consumer act, 2010.
By referring the judgement which is mentioned under section 18, it is stated that in this
case the exclusion clause is not applied as no person is misled or deceptive through any of the
terms mentioned under the trade procedure (Howells and et.al., 2018). They are excluded for the
period of six year limitation and after that no cases relating to misleading is undertaken. If any
person claims under this section, they are liable to get compensation for the period of six years
only. Section 25 is applied under this act is related to the guarantees is agreed regarding not
following the terms which is not effective. The right are also given to the supplier under section
64, that they limit their suppliers in case of securing the wastage of not using the resources in
right manner. It is not necessary that the deal is made on the bases of unfair terms or conditions.
Conclusion:
From the above discussion, it is stated that section 18 is not applied under this act but the
Park Ltd. Is liable to pay compensation under the section 29 of the competition consumer act,
2010. Under section 60, In this guarantee is to be given by the Park Ltd. regarding securing the
consumer rights through providing them guarantee to secure their rights. Thus, in this case the
exclusion clause is controverted under section 29 of the act.
TASK 6: PERSONAL PROPERTY/LICENSES/LEASES/RESIDENTIAL
TENANCIES/STATUTORY PROTECTIONS
Issue:
In this case the issues is raised between the Robert and Peter as Robert is living in the
Caravan at Downsville and paying the licence fee of $100 per week. Robert is the musician and
also copse the original music 'Norm the man'. The issues which is raised regarding not carrying
any intellectual property rights and thus the case of infringement is raised regarding launching
the song by peter in his own name.
Rules:

Under the matters related to the intellectual property rights, it carries various rights such
as copyrights act, patent act, trade mark act. Thus, under the Copyright act, 1986, the rights are
given to the person if the thing are original and also unique from others. In this the security is to
be provided to the person for the 70 years (Bhat, 2017). But in respect of computer
programming, the copyright rights are not to be provided to the persons.
Section 31: It mainly refers to the nature of the work which carried the right of the copyrights.
Section 32: It refers to the original work in which the right of the copyrights are substitutes.
Section 33: In this the time period of duration of the work is judged through which the right of
the copyright are valid for certain time period.
Residential tenancy agreement: In this, the agreement is made regarding giving house on rent for
the particular time period. Under section 8 stated that it refers to the formal agreement which is
made between the tenant and lessor or third party in the form of written agreement and such
agreement is legally bound between the parties.
Application:
By referring the stipulated case, it is suggested the Robert not carry any copyright act
even if the song which is composed is original and also reflect the matters which is proved in all
the sections. But he not applied for the copyright and thus, the liability which they carried in
terms, of the copyright are not eligible to Robert (Anderson and Gallini, 2019). After facing such
issues regarding carrying the original song, if Robert proved that the song is originally written
and also record, than he can get compensation for the losses incurred.
In case of agreement related to the leasehold interest, Robert carries the right as he is
paying the licence fee and in respect of getting order from vacant of the areas. He cannot do such
within the 7 days. As the terms of vacancy are mentioned in the agreement and in this case
nothing specific is mentioned under the contract. Thus, Robert is not liable to vacant any post.
Conclusion:
Thus, from the above study, the matter is discussed related to the copyright act and thus
Robert can claim for the looses of they prove the originality of the work, but he not carries any
copyright rights. In case of licence fee, the licence fee indicates that this is still existences of the
contract thus he cannot provide order on the bases of such terms which is mentioned in the
contract.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Anderson, R. D. and Gallini, N., 2019. Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in a
Knowledge-Based Economy. Routledge.
Beale, Hand and et.al.,, 2019. Cases, materials and text on contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bhat, M. G., 2017. Trade related intellectual property rights for genetic resources: Implications
for developing countries.
Graziano, T.K., 2019. Comparative contract law: cases, materials and exercises. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Helberger, N., Borgesius, F. Z. and Reyna, A., 2017. The perfect match? A closer look at the
relationship between EU consumer law and data protection law. Common Market Law
Review. 54(5). pp.1427-1465.
Howells, G and et.al., 2018. The Yearbook of Consumer Law 2007. Routledge.
Howells, G. G. and Wilhelmsson, T., 2017. EC consumer law. Routledge.
Howells, G., Ramsay, I. and Wilhelmsson, T., 2018. Consumer law in its international
dimension. In Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law, Second Edition.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kerber, W., 2016. Digital markets, data, and privacy: competition law, consumer law and data
protection. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 11(11), pp.856-866.
Lima, M. G. S., 2018. Europe Consumer and Travel Laws. In Traveller Vulnerability in the
Context of Travel and Tourism Contracts (pp. 85-148). Springer, Cham.
Pearce, P. and Pinto, D., 2018. Consumer Law Implications of Ecommerce and Goods
Warehousing. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association. 11. pp.49-57.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
POOLE, J.D., Devenney, J. and Shaw-Mellors, A., 2019. Contract Law Concentrate: Law
Revision and Study Guide. Oxford University Press.
Smits, J.M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Online
“Dangerous Recreational Activity and Materialisation of an Obvious Risk”: Fallas -v- Mourlas
[2006] NSWCA 32. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://mccabecurwood.com.au/dangerous-recreational-activity-and-materialisation-of-
an-obvious-risk-fallas-v-mourlas-2006-nswca-32/>.
Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=101042>.
Baltic Shipping v Dillon. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/baltic.html>.