Contract Law: Analysis of BR vs LL Ferreting Contract Dispute

This assignment is a case study analyzing a contract law dispute between Barnaby Royce (BR) and Lulu Lapin (LL) concerning a contract for rabbit removal from BR's property. The core issue revolves around the alleged breach of contract by LL, who failed to meet the agreed-upon schedule for rabbit removal, leading to potential contract termination and claims for compensation. The analysis examines the essential elements of a contract, including agreement, mutual consent, and competent parties. It references relevant case law, such as Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd V KS Easter (holding) Pty ltd and Lamare V Dixon, to support the arguments regarding breach of contract and remedies like specific performance and compensation. The report concludes that BR has grounds to terminate the contract and seek compensation for losses incurred due to LL's failure to perform as agreed. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contract terms and the consequences of non-compliance.

CONTRACT LAW 2

Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
ISSUE....................................................................................................................................................3
RULES..................................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATION.....................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Contract law refers to the body of law which is mainly imposed upon the parties in
respect of entering into any agreement which is related to the business. In respect of entering
into any agreement parties must fulfill all the essential elements mentioned in the contract
such as they must be competent to handle the contract or there must be offer and acceptance
between the parties and also such contract must be entered on the bases of consideration. The
contract must be legally bound if the parties entered into the contract (Beale and et.al., 2019).
As all agreement are contract but all contract are not from to be the part of the agreement. In
this report, the case is based upon the two parties which is Bamaby Royce (BR) and Lulu
Lapin (LL) and the reason behind entering into the contract is relating to the ferreting out the
Rabbits from the BR property.
ISSUE
In this case the issues which is identified is relating to BR facing issues regarding
increasing the number of rabbits which is harming their carrots plantation. They entered into
the contract with the LL regarding reducing the number of the rabbits through undertaking
the Ferreting. The contract is made on certain condition that the operation is made on the 1st
august and it shall cease on 11 February. If the terms of the contract is not fulfilled on the
particular time period with the set time scheduling, then it results in termination of the
contract. The time scheduling from removing the rabbits in that area is that 90% in august
and 70% in September and similarly on January 10%. Thus, the issues which is raised in this
aspects is relating to not working under the set direction as 80% of the rabbits are moving in
the area in the period of November. The deal for payment is made by viewing the work
committed and then accordingly the payment is given to LL. In this case the issues relating to
termination of the contract is undertaken.
RULES
Under the contract act, the contract is such agreement which is made between the
partners if they are agreeing on certain points and conditions. If the parties enter into the
contract, they both are liable to perform the terms and condition mentioned in the contract.
To file the suit relating to violation of the contract, the parties must prove that they follow all
the essential elements mentioned in the contract such as:
Agreement: In respect of entering into any contract, it is necessary that parties must enter into
the agreement which is made by offering something and another party accept that offer. Thus,
they both enter into the agreement by exchanging some valuable things and also agree with
all the terms and condition mentioned in the contract (Bigwood and Mullins, 2018).
Mutual consent: It is necessary in the contract, that parties must mutually agree with all the
norms and condition which is imposed in contract. Thus the terms which is mentioned in
contract, must be agreed by both the party and also the mutual consent is necessary before
entering into any contract.
Competent parties: The contract must be entered by any person and thus it is necessary that
competency is to be maintained in respect of attaining stability to undertaken the terms of the
contract in right manner.

Written form: Before entering into any contract, it is necessary that the written consent is
made which is signed by both the partners (Buscombe, 2019). After signing all the document,
they are legally bound by the government norms and thus, it is imposed upon the parties to
legally follow all the instruction.
Terms in context of breach: Breach is mainly committed between the parties in respect of
violation or not following any of the condition which is mentioned in the contract. Thus, most
of the parties decided the term, if the issues of breach is undertaken such as compensation
paid or termination of the contract or repudiation of the existing contract (Duncan and
Christensen, 2017).
This is supported with the case study relating to the Air great lakes Pty ltd V KS
Easter (holding) Pty ltd, as in this case the Air great lakes proposed to sell the airline to
Easter and also Easter refused to enter into any such contract with the Air Great lakes (Air
great lakes Pty ltd V KS Easter (holding) Pty ltd, 2018). Thus, they also make the statement
that the Easter is aware of the fact that the contract is not legally imposed as there is no
mutual agreement between the parties.
In respect of reflecting the matters related to the breach of the contract, it is stated that
in the case of Lamare V Dixon (1873) LR 6 HL 414, in this case the defendant agrees to sell
some cellars and after meeting the plaintiff he decided to sell the cellars after getting
complete dry and in good condition (Lamare V Dixon (1873) LR 6 HL 414, 2020). Defendant
and plaintiff both agreed on this condition that the clear which is provided is in good
condition. After the cellars received, they are not reliable and also resulting in reflecting the
breach in terms of contract. In this case the judgment is raised against the defendant regarding
performing specific performance of the contract.
In case of matters related to termination of the contract, either one party carry the
right in case of breach committed in not following any of the terms mentioned in the contract.
Thus, in this case the parties carry the remedies in respect of demanding specific performance
of the contract or also terminate the contract, once the condition are not fulfilled or after the
duration of time period is expired (Eldridge, 2019). Thus, the remedies in respect of paying
compensation to the opposite party or also demanding from the court regarding performing
the contract under the specific performances results in gaining major benefits to the parties.
APPLICATION
By undertaking this case with the present case study, it is stated that in respect of
judging the case with the present case such as in case of Air great lakes Pty ltd V KS Easter
(holding) Pty ltd, the parties not enter into the agreement as, the offer is made by one party
but there is no acceptance of any offer. Thus, in this, the claim raised in respect of performing
the contract is wrong. Similarly, in this BR offers to work for partial things and in return they
are paying high money for the work committed (Eldridge, 2019). The offers is accepted by
the LL regarding working as per the set direction which is guided to them. Thus, the
agreement is made between the parties and thus the agreement is also results in fixing on the
bases of consideration amount. The one essential elements of entering into the contract is
fulfilled and also it is results that both the parties are competent to entering into the contract.
By studying the second case which is relating to the Lamare V Dixon (1873) LR 6 HL
414 as in this case the breach is committed by the parties regarding not working or providing

the right products which is promised by the defendant. Similarly this case is refereed to our
present case as in the case the issues relating to breach is examined regarding not working or
competing the contract which is made for the time period of 11th February. As BR made the
terms in the contract regarding completing or terminating the contract on this date if the work
is not committed as per the set directions (Keyes and Wilson, 2016). Thus the judgment
which is raised in this case is relating to imposing specific performances to complete the
contract as per the set direction. This judgment is also applied in the respective case as the
case is same and also the parties re violating the same terms.
It is also stated from the judgment given by judges that the contract can be terminated
before the time period or also when both the parties agree that such contract is not performed
in the near future. But such right or liberty is not given to the opposite party, if they are not
performing the contract as per their own will (Stewart, Swain and Fairweather, 2019). Thus,
by this aspects the judgment and decision which is applied in this present case scenario, helps
the parties to get accurate justice.
By applying all the term of contract results in making the contract valid and if any of
the terms results in affecting the right of the parties or they are illegal, than such contract is
void. Any of the parties carry the rights to terminate the contract, if such terms are not
fulfilling the integrity of the contract.
CONCLUSION
From the above judgment which is raised in reflecting the case is relating to BR carry
the liability to terminate the construct and as per the terms mentioned regarding the breach of
the terms, they carry the liability to impose the compensation for the losses incurred. As the
area for operation is given for particular time period which results in facing losses regarding
not undertaking any production activities. Thus, particular time period is set by the BR
against LL in respect of completing the task within the set time period. Thus, the situation
which is raised regarding getting compensation for the losses incurred is liable in case of BR.
Thus, in respect of providing the judgment relating to carrying the right regarding terminating
the contract before the time period set as 11th February, then they carry the right to do so. As
the date of termination is set for the contract but in case of not performing the contract as per
the set instruction, then they can terminate the contract and also imposed compensation for
the losses incurred. As the main reason behind appointing the LL is that the issues which they
are facing through the rabbit can be resolved in right way.
LL not performed their duty and thus as per the terms mentioned under the contract
act, they carry the liberty to file the complaint against the LL in respect of paying losses for
the damages incurred. BR also carry the remedies in respect of demanding from the court, to
order LL to person specific performances of the contract. This is such type of remedies which
is given to the plaintiff in respect of ensuring their rights and also imposed upon the
defendant to work as per the court norms.
Thus, the another situation which is reflected in this case is relating to as not carrying
any right by LL regarding terminating the contract in respect of not getting payment which is
fixed for every month. As the issue is raised in the context of LL itself regarding not working
as per the direction given by BR to remove the rabbits from that areas. In return he is liable to

pay compensation regarding for the losses incurred. Under the contract act, no such right is
given to the defendant if they committed breach with any of the party regarding not fulfilling
the terms mentioned in the contract. Similarly, LL is liable to pay compensation for the losses
incurred and also if the specific performances is imposed upon the LL, than he had to
perform the contract till the completion of the contract period.
CONCLUSION
From the above study, the report concludes the matters relating to examining the
importance of the contract law in respect of building Fiat relationship between the partners. It
is stated that parties must enter into the valid contract and also they are legally bound by the
court in repack of following all the terms. It is also examined from this case as both the
parties enter into the valid context but not work in the right direction which is inspired by the
BR in respect of completing the contract within the set time period. The duty related to
breach is also examined and also the remedies which is given to parties in respect of affecting
their rights regarding fulfilling the contract.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Beale, H. and et.al., 2019. Cases, materials and text on contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bigwood, R. and Mullins, R., 2018. Teaching Contract Vitiation in Australia: New
Challenges in Subject Design. Bond L. Rev. 30. p.185.
Buscombe, I., 2019. Insolvent Trading and Fraudulent Trading in Australia: Regulation and
Context. The Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends. 17(1). pp.44-46.
Duncan, W. D. and Christensen, S. A., 2017. Commercial leases in Australia. Thosmson
Reuter.
Eldridge, J., 2019. Contract Codification: Cautionary Lessons from Australia. Edinburgh Law
Review. 23(2). pp.204-229.
Eldridge, J. A., 2019. Codifying Contract Law in Australia: Issues and Obstacles (Doctoral
dissertation).
Keyes, M. and Wilson, T., 2016. Codifying Contract Law: International and Consumer Law
Perspectives. Routledge.
Stewart, A., Swain, W. and Fairweather, K., 2019. Contract law: principles and context.
Cambridge University Press.
Online
Air great lakes Pty ltd V KS Easter (holding) Pty ltd. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/airgreatlakes.html>.
Lamare V Dixon (1873) LR 6 HL 414. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/remedies-cases-2.php>.