Foundations of Business Law Assignment: Contract and Case Analysis

This Business Law assignment comprehensively addresses contract law, case analysis, and consumer law principles. Part A analyzes the case of Ford & Anor v La Forrest, examining the formation of a binding contract, the significance of offer and acceptance, and the intentions of the parties involved. It also discusses the implications of unclear contract terms and the lessons learned from the case. Part B presents two scenarios, one focusing on whether Sally can enforce a contractual agreement against Margaret, and the other exploring the rights of Fletcher against Stan, considering undue influence and unconscionable conduct. Additionally, it investigates the remedies Susan can obtain under Australian Consumer Law against Sydney Cleaners Pty. Ltd, addressing issues of misrepresentation and liability. The assignment applies legal rules to each scenario, providing reasoned conclusions and demonstrating a strong understanding of the relevant legal concepts.

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Contents
Part A.........................................................................................................................................1
Answer 1................................................................................................................................1
Answer 2................................................................................................................................1
Answer 3................................................................................................................................1
Answer 4................................................................................................................................1
Answer 5................................................................................................................................2
Answer 6................................................................................................................................2
Answer 7................................................................................................................................2
Part B..........................................................................................................................................3
1 (a)........................................................................................................................................3
1 (b)........................................................................................................................................4
2 (a)........................................................................................................................................5
2 (b)........................................................................................................................................6
1

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Part A
Answer 1
The case of Ford & Anor v La Forrest (2001) QSC 261 was heard at Supreme Court
at Brisbane. Supreme Court stands at the top level in hierarchy. All appeals from the High
Court are presented before the Supreme Court. The decisions of Supreme Court have binding
effect on lower court. The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in many legal jurisdictions
within the tribunal hierarchy. Other names for such proceedings include last resort tribunal,
apex court, and high (or ultimate) court of appeal. No other tribunal is subject to further
scrutiny of a supreme court's decisions.
Answer 2
It was a civil case based on the term offer, acceptance, significance of acceptance
through mail and binding effect of contract under common laws of Australia. In this case, the
plaintiff sued defendant for damages. In the given case, the onus of proof was on the
plaintiffs that is John Ford and Cornard International Hotels Corporation.
Answer 3
The main issue in the present case was whether the claimant and respondents achieved a
binding compromise agreement in the course of that correspondence under which the
contractor decided to discontinue the request. The applicant raised various issues in the
present case, which are as follows:
 It was not intended that the conditions of the contract would have binding effect.
 The solicitor's behavior was abusive and intimidating, and proof of persistence, undue
influence, and unconscionability was present.
 Acceptance by email cannot create contractual relationship.
 The conditions of discharge are unsatisfactory.
 The phrases used in the applicants email are insufficient to accept the offer
unequivocally.
Thus, the applicant raised abovementioned issues.
2

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Answer 4
In general, there are various essential elements in the formation of valid contract
(Clark, Griggs, Cho, & Hoyle, 2013). A contract is said to be valid under common laws when
it has offer acceptance, consideration, intention of parties to enter into contract and capacity
to contract (Davis, 2012). These elements make a contract valid. In the case of Ford & Anor v
La Forrest the main elements of contract were involved, these are offer acceptance, whether
intention of the parties were as such to bound them into a valid contract, repudiation of
contract, whether parties while entering into compromise agreement had the intention to bind
themselves into such agreement and that the whether the words and terms used amounted to
unequivocal acceptance to offer. In this case, an offer was made by the applicant to settle the
dispute between the parties and time period was given by the applicant to accept the offer.
Before seven days, the defendants made a similar offer of settlement to the applicant, which
also contained the time period. In between the applicant made a counter offer stating the
amount to settle the dispute, which was rejected by the defendants. The applicant send the
same offer to the crown solicitor stating that it was on once only basis offer. The then crown
solicitor rejected the offer. The applicant then responded to the offer of defendants through
email and gave her acceptance to the offer. The defendants sent the applicant an
acknowledgment of her acceptance. Thus, the court dealt with these essential elements of
contract in this case.
Answer 5
In the given case study, the judges considered the case of Masters v Cameron (1954)
91 CLR 353. In the case of Masters v Cameron, it was held by the court that there was a
binding contract between the parties. In this case, an agreement was made to sell a farming
property on certain conditions and a payment was made to agent of vendor. However, when
the purchaser refused to proceed with the agreements then it lead to dispute between both the
parties. The court held that there was an intention of parties to legally bind into contract thus
it was a valid contract. Similarly, in the given case study when the applicant offered to settle
the dispute and later gave counter offer, which was accepted by the parties the court held that
there were intention of the parties to enter into contract and it was valid contract.
3

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Answer 6
If terms of the contract are not set clearly then it can have various adverse effects on
the operation of the business (Latimer, 2011). The terms of the contract must be clear and
unambiguous. It must contain all the essential elements of the contract (Stewart, Swain, &
Fairweather, 2019). While entering into contract both the parties must have intention to create
contract and must know the consequences of legally binding contract. In case both the parties
enter into contract and then refuse to perform their part it will be treated as breach of contract
(Lawson, 2016). In case of conflict between parties where the contract was informal one
cannot sought relief on the basis of such informal contract.
Answer 7
The court treated the contract as valid and binding between the parties and as per the
available facts of the given case, it can be said that the outcome of the case was fair.
From the outcome of this case, various business lessons can be learnt. As per the discussion
with the family members and work colleagues following business law can be learnt, these are
as follows:
1. Before entering into contract, one must know the legal implications of such contract.
2. To bind another person into contract the terms of the contract should be as such that it
clearly indicates the intention of parties.
3. It must be kept in mind while entering into the contract with other party that once the
intention and acceptance is shown then it will bind the other person into contract.
4. In case any party breaches the terms of contract and the contract was informal then
the aggrieved party losses its right to show a valid contract and therefore cannot seek
relief.
5. If the terms of the contract are sound enough and clear and acceptance was given in
due time then in case of breach the other party is entitled to claim for damages or
specific performance.
Concisely, as per the lessons leant by this case it can be concluded that before entering
into negotiations with other party one must know the legal implication of it.

4

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Part B
1 (a)
Issue
The main issue in the present situation is whether sally can enforce contractual
agreement against Margaret.
Rule
To form a valid contract few elements are required to be fulfilled. The requirements
to form a valid contract are offer followed by acceptance and consideration (Tolhurst, 2016).
The other requirements are intention to create lawful relations and capacity of parties to
contract (Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts, 2013). However not every contract has
binding effect hence cannot be enforced by court due to lack of intention of parties. Some
agreements are formed to fulfill moral duties (Mckendrick & Liu, 2015). Under common law
fulfillment of moral obligation are not recognized (Degeling, Edelman, & Goudkamp, 2016).
In the case of Jones v Padavatton (1969) 1 WLR 328, it was held by court that in common
law if the agreement was merely a domestic agreement then it raises a presumption that
parties did not intended to legally bound themselves by agreement.
Application
In the given scenario, Margaret asked Sally to join her business and in return she will
transfer her business to her after three years, Margaret at the time offering her daughter to
join her business did not intended to enter into a valid contract. Both the parties did not
intended to enter into agreement as they did not any signed any agreement. As per the case of
Jones v Padavatton, there was no intention on the part of both the parties at the time of
entering into domestic agreement. Thus, there was no valid contract between parties as it
lacks the intention element of contract.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that there were no agreement between parties thus; Sally cannot
enforce the contract against Margaret, as there was no agreement signed between the parties.
5

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
1 (b)
Issue
The main issue in the present scenario is what are the rights of Fletcher against Stan.
Rule
Under common law if one of the party to contract is at the position to dominate the
will of another or due to fiduciary relationship of both the parties one takes advantage of
another party then it is known as undue influence or contract entered by unconscionable
conduct (Vout, 2009). Such conduct is prohibited by both that is in equity as well as by
statute (Lewison & Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, 2012). Equity
applies where one party to contract has obtained advantage of a specially disabled person for
example illiterate person (Wooler, 2018). To establish a case under unconscionable conduct it
is necessary to show that such conduct of the defaulting party resulted in loss to the
aggrieved (Thampapillai, Tan, Bozzi, & Matthew, 2015). In the case of Commercial Bank of
Australia v Amadio (1983) HCA 14, the legal problem of unconscionable handling owing to
absence of understanding or education was regarded and the consequences of the bargaining
power imbalance were regarded.
Application
In the given situation, Fletcher was illiterate, had only limited business experience,
and had serious health issue. Fletcher used to take advice from his friend Stan and legal
advisor of him. As Fletcher was illiterate and ill, thus Stan was in position to dominate the
will of Fletcher. Stan was in such position that he can easily take advantage of Fletcher’s
illness and illiteracy. To establish a case Fletcher is required to show that he was ill and
illiterate and Stan has obtained benefit of such position and caused loos to him. As per the
case of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amandio, Fletcher did not understand the contract,
which he was signing, and if he had then he would have not signed the contract. Stan had
knowledge of illiteracy of his friend and he took advantage of him and got the paper signed.
6

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that due to unconsciously state Fletcher signed the contract
as he was illiterate and ill. Fletcher has right under common law to avoid such contract and
can file suit against Stan.
7

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
2 (a)
Issue
The main issue in the given scenario is what remedies Susan can obtain under
Australian Consumer Law against Sydney Cleaners Pty. Ltd (SC).
Rule
As per sec 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, an individual must not in trade or
commerce in relation to its goods or services shall not promote by any means of use of goods
or services that its services are of particular standard or quality, value or grade (Corones, The
Australian Consumer Law, 2012). Makes any deliberate false or misleading representation
relating to existence, exclusion or effect of any warranty or condition or right of remedy
(Coorey, 2014). Whoever does any of the above-mentioned acts shall be liable to pay
damages to the aggrieved party or may be imposed with pecuniary liability (Carter, 2019). In
the case of Williams v Pisano (NSWCA 2015), the court refused the special leave and in this
case the meaning of trade and commerce under ACL was defined.
Application
In the given scenario, Susan gave her wedding dress to SC to clean her dress. Susan
was given a small receipt, which contained conditions to exclude the liability of SC in case of
any loss or damage to the dress. As per sec 29 of the act the SC did not exclude its liability or
makes any false representation as to it good or services. Dress of Susan was badly burnt when
she collected her dress. As per the Williams v Pissano, the SC cannot limit their liabilities by
putting excluding clause and shall be liable for the loss caused to the Susan.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that SC cannot restrict its customer to claim compensation
from them in case of any loss caused to the consumer. Thus, Susan can seek relief and can
claim for loss under Australian Consumer Law.
8

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
2 (b)
Issue
The main issue in the given case study is whether ACCC can take actions against
Uncare and what remedies are available to the customers.
Rule
As per sec 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, it prohibits the conduct, which is
misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead, or deceive by corporations in trade or
commerce (Clarke, Clarke, & Erbacher, 2018). Varieties of remedies are accessible for false
or inaccurate behavior (Micklitz & Saumier, 2018). In order to establish case under this
section few elements are required to be proved as it was stated in the case of Concrete
Constructions v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594. These are: such conduct was done in the usual
course of trade or commerce, in all circumstances such conduct was deceptive and
misleading, applicant relied on such conduct and the claimant experienced a loss because of
his dependence on the conduct (Bruce, 2010).
The person who has suffered loss by relying such conduct can claim for damages.
Application
In the given situation, Uncare Pty. Ltd operates aged care center. In 2018, Uncare
promised its customer that it would provide extra services including conditioning,
physiotherapy rooms, leisure activity spaces and smart room technology. However no such
services were provided by the company. As per sec 18 of the act Uncare to attract customer
mislead them by promising to provide certain services, but none was provided. The customer
relied on such fake promises of the Uncare and invested their money into such offers. As per
the elements of the sec 18 the conduct of Uncare was in course of business, the conduct of
Uncare was misleading and deceptive as they did not provided any services, which resulted in
loss to the customers. All the elements of sec 18 are present thus; ACCC can take action
against Uncare.
Conclusion
9

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
It can be concluded that ACCC has right to take action against Uncare under sec 18 of
the act and is entitled to claim remedies under Australian Consumer Law.
Bibliography
Bruce, A. (2010). Consumer Protection Law in Australia. New York: LexisNexis
Butterworths.
Carter, J. W. (2019). Contract and the Australian Consumer Law. Germany: Federation
Press.
Clark, E., Griggs, L., Cho, G., & Hoyle, A. (2013). Contract Law in Australia. Netherlands:
Kluwer International Law.
Clarke, P., Clarke, P. H., & Erbacher, S. (2018). Australian Consumer Law: Commentary and
Materials. New York: Thomson Reuters Australia.
Coorey, A. (2014). Australian Consumer Law. New York: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Corones, S. G. (2012). The Australian Consumer Law. New York: Lawbook Company.
Corones, S. G., & Clarke, P. H. (2011). The Australian Consumer Law: Commentary and
Materials. New York: Thomson Reuters.
Davis, J. L. (2012). Contract: General Principles : the Laws of Australia. New York:
Thomson Reuters.
Degeling, S., Edelman, J., & Goudkamp, J. (2016). Contract in Commercial Law. New York:
Thomson Reuters Australia Limited.
Latimer, P. (2011). Australian Business Law 2012. Toronto: CCH Australia Limited.
Lawson, R. G. (2016). Damages for Breach of Contract. New York: Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Uk Limited.
Lewison, K. (2013). The Interpretation of Contracts. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
Lewison, K., & Hughes, D. (2012). The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia. New York:
Thomson Reuters.
10

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Mckendrick, E., & Liu, Q. (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. New York: Macmillan
International Higher Education.
Micklitz, H.-W., & Saumier, G. (2018). Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law.
Germany: Springer .
Stewart, A., Swain, W., & Fairweather, K. (2019). Contract Law: Principles and Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thampapillai, D., Tan, V., Bozzi, C., & Matthew, A. (2015). Australian commercial law.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tolhurst, G. J. (2016). The Assignment of Contractual Rights. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Vout, P. T. (2009). Unconscionable Conduct: The Laws of Australia. New York: Thomson
Reuters .
Wooler, G. (2018). Unconscionable Conduct in Commercial Transactions: Global
Perspectives and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
11