Legal Studies Assignment: Contract Law Analysis of Two Scenarios

This legal studies assignment analyzes two scenarios related to contract law. The first scenario involves an art dealer, a painter, and a third party, exploring issues of breach of contract, misrepresentation, and agency theory. The second scenario focuses on the sale of a used car, involving a minor, a car dealer, and the minor's parents, examining issues of guarantees, misrepresentation, and the legal rights and liabilities of each party. The assignment delves into relevant Australian legislation and legal principles, providing a comprehensive analysis of the cases and their implications. The analysis covers the formation of contracts, breach of contract, and the rights and liabilities of the involved parties. This assignment showcases the complexities of contract law in practical situations.

Legal Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Q 1....................................................................................................................................................1
Vera: -.....................................................................................................................................1
A. Siddo & Queenie: -............................................................................................................1
B. Siddo & Elly: -...................................................................................................................2
C. Siddo & Isobel: -................................................................................................................2
Q 2....................................................................................................................................................3
Joan: -.....................................................................................................................................4
Frank: -...................................................................................................................................4
Karl and Maria: -....................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

Q 1
Vera: -
It is clear from the scenario that Siddo is liable under contract with Vera who is a well-
known artistic painter and is specialized in creating landscape scenes. However, this case depicts
that she has asked Siddo to sell her newest painting named Dawn which is recognized as her best
painting within past 10 years (Steel and et.al., 2016). Further, she guided Siddo to sell painting
within $40000 or may peddle it early at $32000 but not less that. Additionally, she even
commanded him to get her written approval before selling painting less than $32000. It had
become a contract within transfer of promises within both parties.
A. Siddo & Queenie: -
As mentioned under case study, Siddo was not allowed to sell Vera's painting less than
$40000 while counter offer was made regarding quick sale in which he can sale it at $32000.it
can be determined as conditional acceptance which might turn up original contract. Concept of
this issue lies under Siddo encounter offer which has terminated earlier contract. From this case,
it can be seen that he sold that painting at $20000 to Queenie and did not acquire any note from
Vera.
Offeree promised offeror that he will sell painting at her desired value or will acquire
written note from her if it would sell it at lesser value than estimated value (Tassé, Kirby and
Fortier, 2016).
Vera possesses legal rights to continue or discontinue with the agreement or can even due
offeree against court.
Now it showcases unfavorable acts among contracted parties can develop uncertain
behavior and attitude among each other (Piquero and et.al., 2016).
If Vera doesn't want to sell her painting to Queeni she can file a valid offer and
acceptance case against Siddo and meanwhile acquire ownership of painting back. (Alexy,
2016).
Further, Vera can personally discuss the issues with Siddo to resolve their disputes by
recognizing relevant remedy regarding occurred faulty situation (Creutzfeldt, Kubal and Pirie,
2016). Mutual understanding is the best way to reduce conflicts without any court participation
because it even consumes less time and does not incur huge amount of money.
1

With reference to this situation it has been notified that Vera can legally sue him under
law pertaining to the rights and regulations framed under Australian legislation (Nolan, 2017).
Therefore, selling painting in $20000 without written approval of its owner comes under
fraudulent or misleading actions which can be abided under laws.
Lastly, Queeni can directly concern with owner if she could sell her painting at
prescribed amount (Rose, 2017). Even though contract or agreement was made among both the
persons. Fraudulent misrepresentations should be avoided because it decreases trust and loyalty
among contracted persons.
B. Siddo & Elly: -
Contract come to an existence with mutual understanding or agreement between both
parties. Under this situation, Siddo has already purchased Vera's painting which has terminated
the contract with no legal intervention. For example- both of the parties accept each other’s offer
with prescribed terms and conditions to sell painting among Siddo has ended bound of contract.
In this case valid agreement has been made to maintain legal relations among each person
without any conflicts by accepting counter offer made by Vera regarding early sale of her
painting (Daly and Scardamaglia, 2017). Now, Siddo is liable to agree or disagree with the offer.
If Siddo wants to reject her encountered offer he can refuse regarding revocation of acceptance
or agreement. However, he accepted with agreement and has purchased her painting.
Meanwhile, Vera acquire legal rights to take any action against Siddo if he refuses to buy
painting after getting under legally designed agreement (White and Easteal, 2016).
Now, after purchasing the ownership of painting, Siddo possesses legal rights to sell his
painting to anyone at any determined price. Vera is not liable to sue him under any legal actions
because she doesn't possess any rights over that painting (Gans, 2016).
Thus, under cited situation Siddo does not fall under any legal biases actions because he
has purchased ownership of the painting that has been designed by Vera (Rahim, 2017). Though
he can sell to any person under different prices without interruptions.
C. Siddo & Isobel: -
As an agreement or contract is been formed among both parties that is Vera and Siddo
with valid offer to be made with third party. An important point to be marked exists under this
situation is that, Vera owner of painting commanded Siddo to sell her product early at minimum
$32000. He further, retailed her commodity to Isobel at early stage on desirable price (Connolly,
2

2017). Study showcase that cited buyer was so overjoyed and pleased after looking at painting
that she provided him extra $3000 as a gift.
In the given case, there is a valid ongoing contract without any breach or
misinterpretation. Isobel was happy with Siddo service that is why she had provided him $3000
as a benefit. Under this situation Vera is not liable to supplicate him because that incentive was
allotted as appreciation to Siddo which should be kept by him.
Now, law or legal biases cannot be applied against Siddo (Field and et.al., 2016). Vera is
not liable to sue him or can't be declared as a breach (Richards and Higgins, 2016).
Applying Agency theory: Agency theory is a conjecture that states the relationship
between the principals and agents of a business Bowstead on Agency, 14th edn, Sweet &
Maxwell, 1976, p. 1. This is concerned with the solving the conflicts that can occur in a deal
because of unaligned goals. In first circumstance, the principal is Vera who is willing to sold her
painting at minimum $32000 and the agent is Siddo who sold it for $20000. The reason of this
conflict is that the principal wasn't aware of this incident. This circumstance has the relationship
of Vera and Siddo as the “BREAKING DOWN 'Agency theory"
In the second situation, the agent, Siddo bought paining for himself at $32000 and sold it in
$38000 to a third person. Thus, he is at guilt in this as he utilised resource of a principal. In this
circumstance, the relationship of Vera and Siddo relates to the Contrasting Risk Appetites of
agency theory (Daly and Scardamaglia, 2017).
In the third situation, Isobel paid $32000 for the painting and gave $3000 to Siddo as his
appreciation reward. As agency is the relationship between two parties and the principal is the
one who gives responsibility and give decision-making power to agent to deal the third person.
The conflicts arise due to Isobel and thus, it relates to the Third-Party Relationships of agency
theory.
Q 2
First and foremost, given case study has identified that Joan who is an intelligent 17-year-
old girl operating small courier business. She required a delivery van or car for her personal as
well as business use. Therefore, she went near Frank who is the dealer of second hand cars in
Sydney. An agreement was made between them and he sold her car for $49000. She had
3

deposited $4000 as her first installment and contracted with Frank to pay him equal installments
with 25% interest rate under 12 months.
Owner of used cars has assured her that she will not have to look after its car
maintenance. After every certain discussion both the parties underwent an agreement and later
Frank asked to obtain guarantee regarding contractual obligations. For such purpose, she called
her parents named Karl and Maria (Deakin and et.al., 2017). Joan's father was a lecturer of
biology whereas her mother was event intelligent but had less knowledge related to English
studies.
Joan fooled her parents and acknowledged them that she had financed just for $25000
and loans would be repaid after 3 months. She further provided false statement to her parents by
notifying them that she would be provided finance by the bank (Havel, 2017). After listening to
such conversation her parents have signed guarantee agreement without even reading (Rose,
2017). Frank was unaware of her parent’s knowledge and even didn't know that they are about to
get divorced.
After 6 months, Joan's car occurred huge repair and therefore she stopped paying loan to
Frank. Under these circumstances he started threatening her parents and asked them to pay
complete amount of money within 7 days (Gans, 2016). Frank further stated that he will sue
every one of them in case of any default circumstance.
Joan: -
It is clear from the case that Joan has undergone in a legal agreement with frank
regarding purchase of second hand car. Car owner has guaranteed her for 12 months with care
free usage (Downey, 2016). But she has incurred with huge repair within six months. Such
situation has emerged valid contract among both parties with an intention of making legal
relations.
In the given study, valid breach of contract has been made against Joan and she is liable
to encounter legal rights and liabilities to sue the second-hand car owner (Rahim, 2017). Joan
can terminate the contract or agreement which has communicated to her by offeror (Elements of
a contract, 2017).
Joan can make him legally bias because private sellers can be levied with huge
repayments or may be covered under bars if they represented faulty actions or provided fake
description of the item which they are about to sold (Daly and Scardamaglia, 2017).
4

Additionally, is mentioned that any extra disguised promises made among buyers regarding
warranties will make them sued under misleading conduct.
Perhaps it is highlighted that dishonest and disreputable among guilty clients which can
raise such consequences that leads their business under termination stage (Nolan, 2017). Thus,
she owns number of legal rights which is beneficial in conducting strict action against owner of
Used cars Pvt. ltd.
Legal structure determines that every individual must research effectively regarding the
firm or company from which they are making purchases. It is crucial to notice whether they
obtain license relevant to their conducted business (Daher, 2017).
Frank: -
It is clear from the case that used car owner is holding copyright of its car company. He
undergoes an agreement among Joan regarding her purchase of swift sedan. She has agreed to
pay car installment within 12 months and has even given her parents guarantee while signing the
contract (Johnson, South and Walters, 2016). However, she had paid just 6 months installment
and later refused to initiate further payment. At such circumstances, Frank possess legal rights
and liabilities to sue Joan and her parents against law or even behind bars.
Further, Frank can confront under legal sessions by conveying that when contract was
being held Joan has checked product quality and feature (Nolan, 2017). Moreover, repair might
have been developed due to her rash driving or due to any other circumstances (Piquero and
et.al., 2016). He can even outline that his company is legally licensed under law as he provides
with good quality services.
According to the study it has been noticed that Joan as well as her parents are liable for
repaying money among frank because they have signature contract at the time of purchase
(Alexy, 2016). Owner of used cars can reflect that Joan has misrepresented her parents regarding
the payment or installments. Similarly, she had even acknowledged her parents that she has
financed money from banks.
Now, Frank possess legal rights and liabilities to generate complete amount of money
from Joan as mentioned under contract made between them (Legal rights and liabilities of second
hand motor vehicles, 2017).
5

Such factors would showcase that Joan is a fake person who can fool anyone and is
conducted misleading acts among car owner. Thus, from the above scenario it has been notified
that, Frank possessing several legal rights and duties to sue Joan and her parents regarding
nonpayment of the purchased car (White and Easteal, 2016).
Karl and Maria: -
In the cited case study Karl and Maria are parents of Joan who has purchased second
hand car from Frank. Although they don't possess any major role under the breach of contract but
has provided with the guarantee regarding repayments of loans to the dealer. Further, Joan has
misinterpreted them regarding the finances and installments under which amount is liable to be
payed (Daher, 2017). Moreover, case study highlights that frank miss leaded among them and
has threatened them to repay the amount of loan with interests within 7 days. Similarly, he even
conveyed to get them legally sued under law.
It has been signified that those persons who provide guarantee under contract are not
liable to be threatened or sued under law. Therefore, any misconduct or violence among them
can abide person under law (Havel, 2017). From this scenario, it is confronted that Karl and
Maria can sue Frank because he had threatened them and even has provided her daughter with
defected product even after allotting them with warranties.
Frank can be legally sued due to threatening Joan's parents even when they were less
involved in the agreement (Havel, 2017). Karl and Maria has rights of revocation to withdraw an
encounter against legal actions.
Thus, from the above scenario it is recommended that Joan's parents are liable to sue
frank against law because it is enacted under legal structure that persons who provide guarantee
under contact are not liable to be involved within misleading activities or actions (Johnson,
South and Walters, 2016). Therefore, owner of used cars has threatened them and their lives to
repay the amount of loan. Not only this, he has pressurized Karl and Maria to be sued or covered
behind bars.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Alexy, R., 2016. The Absolute and the Relative Dimensions of Constitutional Rights. Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies.37(1). pp. 31-47.
Connolly, A. J., 2017. The Foundations of Australian Public Law: State, Power, Accountability.
Cambridge University Press.
Creutzfeldt, N., Kubal, A. and Pirie, F., 2016. Introduction: exploring the comparative in socio-
legal studies. International Journal of Law in Context.12(4). pp. 377-389.
Daher, M., 2017. Creditor control rights, capital structure, and legal enforcement. Journal of
Corporate Finance. 44. pp. 308-330.
Daly, A. and Scardamaglia, A., 2017. Profiling the Australian Google consumer: implications of
search engine practices for consumer law and policy. Journal of Consumer Policy. pp. 1-
22.
Deakin, S. and et.al., 2017. Legal institutionalism: Capitalism and the constitutive role of law.
Journal of Comparative Economics.45(1). pp. 188-200.
Downey, K. J., 2016. You Are Not the Father-Parental Liabilities and Rights of Sperm Donors
in Tennessee. U. Mem. L. Rev. 47. pp. 597.
Field, R. and et.al., 2016. Family reports and family violence in Australian family law
proceedings: What do we know? Journal of Judicial Administration. 25(4). pp. 212.
Gans, J., 2016. Modern criminal law of Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Havel, M. B., 2017. How the distribution of rights and liabilities in relation to betterment and
compensation links with planning and the nature of property rights: Reflections on the
Polish experience. Land Use Policy.67. pp. 508-516.
Johnson, H., South, N. and Walters, R., 2016. The commodification and exploitation of fresh
water: Property, human rights and green criminology. International Journal of Law, Crime
and Justice.44. pp.146-162.
Nolan, D., 2017. Rights, Damage elements of legal studies and Loss. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies. 37(2). pp. 255-275.
Piquero, A. R. and et.al., 2016. Longitudinal patterns of legal socialization in first-generation
immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and native-born serious youthful offenders.
Crime & Delinquency.62(11). pp. 1403-1425.
Rahim, M. M., 2017. Improving social responsibility in RMG industries through a new
governance approach in laws. Journal of Business Ethics. 143(4). pp.807-826.
7

Richards, C. and Higgins, V., 2016. Trade liberalisation and Australian biosecurity:
Opportunities and challenges under the ‘shared responsibility’ approach. Farm Policy
Journal.13(3). pp. 1-9.
Rose, G., 2017. Australian Law to Combat Illegal Logging in Indonesia: A Gossamer Chain for
Transnational Enforcement of Environmental Law. Review of European, Comparative &
International Environmental Law.26(2). pp.1 28-138.
Star, C., 2016. Silencing Australian civil society: The Howard Legacy and the Abbott
government's remaking of Australian democracy. Social Alternatives. 35(1). pp. 33.
Steel, A. and et.al., 2016. Critical Legal Reading: The Elements, Strategies and Dispositions
Needed to Master this Essential Skill. Legal Education Review. 26(1). pp. 9.
Tassé, A. M., Kirby, E. and Fortier, I., 2016. Developing an ethical and legal interoperability
assessment process for retrospective studies. Bio preservation and biobanking. 14(3). pp.
249-255.
White, J. and Easteal, P., 2016. Feminist jurisprudence, the Australian legal system and intimate
partner sexual violence: fiction over fact. Laws. 5(1). pp. 11.
Online
Elements of a contract, 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/07_01_02_elements_of_a_contract/>. [Accessed on 13th
September 2017].
Legal rights and liabilities of second hand motor vehicles, 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s03s04s02.php>. [Accessed on 13th September
2017].
8