Enterprise Law Case Study: Contract, Partnership, Liability

This Enterprise Law case study analyzes a scenario involving a landscaping contract, a partnership, and vicarious liability. The first part examines a contract dispute where a landscaper, Brandon, is trying to recover the remaining payment from Daniel after agreeing to a reduced fee. The analysis focuses on contract elements, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and the impact of a contingent contract like a lottery. The second part explores a partnership between Rebecca and Joel, investigating whether a partnership exists and Rebecca's liability for business debts and actions, including a car accident involving a delivery truck. The analysis covers partnership law, joint and several liability, and vicarious liability. The case also examines Rebecca's liability for starting a separate business with similar interests. The conclusion provides insights on Brandon's claim, Rebecca and Joel's partnership liabilities, and vicarious liability for the car accident.

Running Head: Enterprise Law
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1ENTERPRISE LAW
Q1
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Brandon has any right to claim the recovery of remaining
15,000$ as the part of full settlement.
Rules:
For a simple contract we need to satisfy these requirements:
 Intention to create legal relations
 Agreement Offer + Acceptance
 Consideration
 Legality of object
 Consent
 Capacity
The lottery is a contingent contract where the performance of the contract is dependent upon
the future instance of the contract. Such contract includes betting, lottery, gambling signifying the
performance of the contract on the basis of a future happening making such contract voidable at the
option of the party responsible for the performance of the contract. Such contracts are also
considered void if the performance of the contract becomes impossible due to happening of future
events.
Application:
In the given scenario, Daniel and Brandon entered into a contract for the pavement of area
near swimming in exchange for the consideration amount of 40,000$. The performance of the
contract was discharged and the extra flowering shrubs was offered by Daniel to Brandon to be
taken away to decorate his house. The same was accepted and taken by Brandon to decorate his
own property. Further, it was offered by Daniel to Brandon whether he would appreciate a
reduction in his fee amount to relieve Daniel from the loan issues of the bank for the compliance of
the government notice for the improvement in his fence. The same was accepted by Brandon,

2ENTERPRISE LAW
considering Daniel’s problems. However, next day Brandon learned that Daniel won 500,000$ on
Lotto and therefore, all the monetary issues are excused. Thus, in the given scenario, Brandon has
no choice of claim because at every step, an offer was made and same was accepted forming a new
contract. However, he was paid less but such payment was only after the free consent of Brandon.
The lottery was a contingent hence, the contract was voidable in nature. Thus, the previous
contract is not dependent up on the consequences of the lottery.
Conclusion:
It can thus, be concluded that Brandon has no right to claim to be paid by Daniel in full
recovering the remaining 15,000$ as the part of full settlement.
Q2
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether the business partnership is in existence between Rebecca
and Joel.
The issue in the case is whether Rebecca is potentially liable for the payments arising from
the purchase of ooh Orchids.
Rule:
The partnership act 1892 (NSW), s1(1) tells us a partnership is the relation which exists between
person carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.
Partnership act 1892, Joint and several liability: Partners may be held jointly or several
liable for the full extent of the debts incurred in the course of the partnership business, the partner
who is then required to pay may then pursue the remaining partners to seek their portion of the
liability.
Application:
In the given scenario, the partnership contract existed between Rebecca and Joel on the basis
of the contribution of capital in cash and in kind, along with the distribution of duties in relation
with the business and the terms and conditions established for the payment of profits to the partners.

3ENTERPRISE LAW
In the given scenario, Rebecca had not agreed for the purchase and sale of expensive Ooh
Orchids and hence, it is solely the liability of Joel to get it sold and confer profits out of the same. In
case of the liability of payments arising from the expensive Ooh Orchids, the liability of Joel and
Rebecca would be several in nature due to non-consent of Rebecca in the deal and also non-
disclosure of such deal to Rebecca.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that the partnership arrangement existed between Rebecca and Joel.
It can thus, be concluded that Rebecca is not potentially liable for the payments arising from
the purchase of Ooh Orchids.
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Rebecca is liable for the car accident involving the delivery truck.
Rules:
Vicarious Liability is a type of strict liability, which arises when the acts of the superior is
responsible for the harm caused to the third party due to negligence or any other act or omission of
act. It is a doctrine in common law principle. The main element in exercising this liability is to
assess whether the superior had the ability or duty to control the acts of the subordinate and prevent
the harm caused to the third party.
Application:
In the given scenario, Mathews was under pressure by Rebecca to deliver the flowers to a
very important customer leading to an accident causing harm to the third party. Hence, it can be
assessed that Rebecca had the ability as well as the duty to control the activities of Mathews and not
pressurize him to the extent of losing control over his vehicle and rush for the delivery.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Rebecca is vicariously liable for the car accident involving the
delivery truck.
Issue:

4ENTERPRISE LAW
The issue in the case is whether Rebecca is liable for starting a separate business with the
similar matter.
Rules:
Partnership act 1892, Joint and several liability: Partners may be held jointly or several
liable for the full extent of the debts incurred in the course of the partnership business, the partner
who is then required to pay may then pursue the remaining partners to seek their portion of the
liability.
Application:
In the given scenario, Rebecca and Joel had discussed the lucrative nature of supplying
flowers to events and still Rebecca started her own separate business to supply flowers to weddings
leading to cheating and contradiction with the interest of the partnership firm making her liable for
the same.
Conclusion:
It can thus, be concluded that Rebecca is liable for starting a separate business with the
similar matter.

5ENTERPRISE LAW