Detailed Case Analysis and Legal Principles: Contract and Property Law

This report provides a detailed analysis of two case studies related to contract and property law. Part A examines a scenario involving the sale of goods, specifically focusing on whether a customer, Annie, can sue Desert Island Discs for breach of contract. The analysis delves into the principles of offer, acceptance, and the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat, citing relevant case law such as Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co and Pharmaceutical Society v Boots. It also explores potential defenses available to Desert Island Discs under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, including the buyer's responsibility to inspect goods. Part B shifts focus to property law, addressing the issue of Dodo's responsibility for debts related to a mortgage where his signature was forged. The analysis examines the legal principles of mortgage, particularly concerning forged documents and the implications under the Corporation Act 2001 and Duties Act 2001, referencing cases such as Solak v Bank of Western Australia Ltd and Vassos v State Bank of South Australia. The report concludes that Annie could potentially claim breach of contract, while Dodo is not responsible for the debts due to the forged signature.

Running head: CONTRACT AND PROPERT LAW
Contract and Property Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
Part A:
a)
Issue:
The issue in this case is concerned with the fact that whether Annie can take any legal
action against Desert Island Discs and recover her money.
Rule:
The law of contract has been protecting the parties who has been accepting the terms and
conditions represented by the offeror in good faith. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that
such terms and conditions shall be enforceable under the law of contract, where the offeree
undertakes a specific task by removing the demand for communicating acceptance and thereby
transferring the invitation on the part of the offeror into a formal offer. It is noteworthy to
mention here that, a contractual obligation can arise when there is an aim on the part of one of
the parties to make an informal offer however; there may be an absence of a distinctive sentence.
For the purpose of forming an essential contract there must be offer, acceptance, consideration
and an intention to form legal relations. However there is a difference between offer and
invitation to sell. It is worth noting that, in order to make a valid offer there must be
consideration which the amount is paid on the part of one of the parties to bind them legally. An
offer is made to a particular person and an invitation to sell is made to the public as a whole
which was observed in Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [1953] 1 All ER 482, CA. In case of
offer, the conduct of the offeror forms an important part of the creation of legal intention. In
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256 (CA), it was observed that the advertisement
clearly represented the fact that there was an intention to form legal relations. In case of

2CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204, it was observed that a advertisement not only acts
as a mere invitation to treat but also as an offer as it forms a bilateral contract between the
parties.
Application:
In the present case study, it can be observed that, the advertisement was clearly
represented that the discs will be sold five for $12.99. In this scenario, it is worthwhile to refer
the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256 (CA) because it was visibly
represented that there was an intention to create legal relations. The case of Pharmaceutical
Society v Boots [1953] 1 All ER 482, CA can be applied here because the nature of the
advertisement regarding the discs was more like an invitation to sell rather than offer. It is
important to apply the case of Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204, because as a result
of the advertisement, there formed a bilateral contract between Annie and the Desert Island
Discs.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be stated that, Annie could bring a claim against Desert Island
Discs for breach of legal relation and recover her money which she paid for purchasing the discs.
b)
Issue:
The issue in this case is that whether any defences are available to the Desert Island
Discs.
Rule:

3CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
Under the provisions of Sale of Goods Act 1979, it is important on the part of the buyer
to check the goods before buying. In this regard, the provisions of Section 16-19 of the Sale of
Goods Act 1979 states that certain rules are associated with the transfer of property which
protects the rights and interests of both buyers and sellers. In this regard, it is worthwhile to
mention here that unless and until the property has been delivered to the buyer, the rights of such
buyer entirely depends upon the nature of the contract and the interest in the goods diminishes.
According to the provisions of Section 20 Sale of Goods Act 1979, when the delivery of the
goods are passed to the buyer, he is at the liability to bear the expenses in case if the goods are
damaged or do not comply with the conditions mentioned before. In this regard, it is worth
mentioning, the goods should be purchased by the buyers t their own risk. However, there is a
right to reject the goods before buying after proper examination.
In Horsfall v Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90, it was observe that the plaintiff was employed
by the defendant for the purpose of making a gun. In this case, it was held by the Court that,
although the defect in the gun was concealed however; it was the duty of the buyer to check the
product before buying. Therefore, the plaintiff was not held liable. Similarly in the case of
Attwood v Small (1838) 6 CI&F 232, it was held by the Court that there was no
misrepresentation as the statements were previously examined by the expert agents of the
purchasers.
Application:
In the present case study it can be observed that, Annie purchased the discs without
checking them. She even did not check the amount that has been charged for the discs.
Therefore, in this scenario, the case of Horsfall v Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90 can be referred

4CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
because, it is important to examine a product at an early stage. Though there was
misrepresentation on the part of Desert Island Discs, Annie should have checked the products
while purchasing. Therefore, in this case, Desert Island Discs shall not be held liable. The case of
Attwood v Small (1838) 6 CI&F 232 can be applied because in this case, the statements were
previously examined and therefore the claim for misrepresentation was set aside. In the present
scenario, as Annie did not make any attempt to examine the product before purchase and
therefore, Desert Island Discs can escape liability.
Conclusion:
It can be finally concluded that the defences which are available to Desert Island Discs
are on the ground that as the product was not checked by the customer prior purchase therefore,
it shall not be held liable.
Part B:
Issue:
The issue in this case is that whether Dodo is responsible for the debts.
Rule:
The provisions regarding mortgage of property are contained in Section 601QA (1) (b) of
the Corporation Act 2001. However, the provisions regarding mortgage over property are stated
in the provisions of Section 260 of the Duties Act 2001. According to the provisions of Section
260, the duty regarding mortgage over property must be partly determined in Queensland and
party outside. In Solak v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2009] VSC 82, it was observed that
there involved a forged mortgage document and a forged loan document. It was held by the

5CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
Court that the purpose of such mortgage cannot effectively secure anything because the loan
documents in relation to it were forged. Similarly, in Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v English
and Anor [2010] NSWCA 32 and Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Cox [2014] NSWCA 328,
it was observed that the mortgage secured noting as the documents of loan has been forged. In
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v English and Anor [2010] NSWCA 32, it was observed that as
the husband forged the signature of his wife on a loan agreement therefore, there can be no
agreement between the lender and the borrower during the period when the mortgage has been
executed. In Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Cox [2014] NSWCA 328, it was observed that
though the mortgage itself was not forged however; the Court on sufficient grounds established
that the mortgage has been forged. In Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316,
it was observed that the Supreme Court of Victoria declared the document mortgage was fraud as
it included forged signature. In this regard, it was held by the Court that, the mortgagee was not a
party to the fraud as he was unaware of the fact that his signature has been forged.
Application:
In the present scenario, it can be observed that, as the bank insisted for a mortgage
therefore, Pina forged Dodo’s signature for the purpose of proceeding with the requirements.
Therefore, in this scenario, the case of Solak v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2009] VSC 82
can be referred. This is due to the reason that, Dodo was unaware of the fact that Pina has forged
his signature. Dodo even did not authorize Pina to forge his signature. Similarly, the case of
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v English and Anor [2010] NSWCA 32 can be applied because
in the present case the mortgage do not secure anything because the documents in support of the
mortgage are forged. The case of Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Cox [2014] NSWCA 328
can also be applied in this regard. It is worthwhile to refer the case of In Vassos v State Bank of

6CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316 because in the present scenario, Dodo was unaware of the fact
that his signature has been forged. Therefore, Dodo is not a party to the mortgage which is based
on fraud. In the present case the mortgage over property shall not be held valid as it do not
comply with the provisions of Section 260 of the Duties Act 2001.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be mentioned that Dodo is not responsible for the debts
regarding the mortgage repayments and the cost of removing the shack because it was done by
Pina without taking the authorization from him.

7CONTRACT AND PROPERTY LAW
References:
Cases:
Attwood v Small (1838) 6 CI&F 232.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256 (CA).
Horsfall v Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90.
Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204.
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Cox [2014] NSWCA 328.
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v English and Anor [2010] NSWCA 32.
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [1953] 1 All ER 482, CA.
Solak v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2009] VSC 82.
Vassos v State Bank of South Australia [1993] 2 VR 316.
Acts:
The Corporation Act 2001 (Cth).