Detailed Case Study: Contract Law Issues with Bruce and Owen Rowland

This case study examines two distinct legal scenarios. The first involves Bruce, whose contract ratification after sobering up makes him liable for breach if he refuses it. The second focuses on Owen Rowland's dispute with Restaurant Equipment Pty Ltd, where the lack of explicit communication regarding the 'as is' condition and warranty terms makes the company liable for the defective oven. The analysis applies relevant contract law principles and case precedents to conclude on the liabilities and obligations of each party. Desklib offers a variety of solved assignments and case studies for students.

Case study of Bruce
Issue-
Whether Bruce is bound by the contract.
Rules-
• A contract made in intoxicated state shall not
bind the parties.
• Gibbons v Wright (1954) CLR 423

• if the contract was ratified by the party after
he came to a sober sense, it can be
enforceable.
Application-
Bruce had confirmed the contract when
he sobered up.
Bruce cannot refuse it afterwards.
He would commit a breach of contract.

Conclusion-
Bruce shall be liable.

Case study of Owen Rowland
Issue-
Right of Owen Rowland against
Restaurant Equipment Pty Ltd.
Rules-
• The law relating to contract and unfair
terms of the contract needs to be
highlighted in this case.

• The terms of the contract should be
specifically and clearly stated to other party.
It is the duty of a party to communicate
the conditions that the contract may carry.
No contract should be formed on the
basis that it hides the material fact from the
other party.

• A valid contract should expressly state the
terms of the contract to the parties.
Director General of Fair Trading v First
National Bank [2002] 1 AC 482; [2001] UKHL 52

Application-
The terms of no warranty was not expressly
conveyed to Owen Rowland.
It was their duty to convey the ‘as is’ terms
to the purchaser.
The Restaurant Equipment Pty Ltd shall be
liable for the defect in the oven that it was not
reliable.
They can not refuse to take back the oven or
do something for it.

Conclusion-
Restaurant Equipment Pty Ltd cannot refuse to
take the oven back or do something for it.