LAWS20061: Management Law Case Study Assessment 3 Solution

This case study solution for LAWS20061 Management Law analyzes four distinct legal issues. The first question examines the validity of a contract between Tom and Susan, focusing on the elements of a valid agreement, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, ultimately concluding the contract is valid. The second issue addresses whether Steve is legally obligated to buy a car from Jason, differentiating between an offer and an invitation to offer, and determining Steve is not bound. The third question explores Harry's defense against Carl's negligence, applying the principles of the Civil Liability Act, including duty of care, breach of duty, and the doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria. The final issue concerns Betty's rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) against an online website, emphasizing misleading conduct and Betty's right to remedies. The solution provides thorough analysis, applying relevant legal principles and case law to each scenario.

LAWS20061 Management Law
(2017 Semester 2)
Assessment 3- Case Study
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question 1..................................................................................................................................3
Issue........................................................................................................................................3
Rules.......................................................................................................................................3
Applicability of rules..............................................................................................................3
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................3
Question 2..................................................................................................................................4
Issue........................................................................................................................................4
Rules.......................................................................................................................................4
Applicability of rule...............................................................................................................4
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................4
Question 3..................................................................................................................................4
Issue........................................................................................................................................4
Rule........................................................................................................................................4
Applicability of rule...............................................................................................................5
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................5
Question 4..................................................................................................................................5
Issue........................................................................................................................................5
Rule........................................................................................................................................5
Applicability of rule...............................................................................................................6
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................7
2

QUESTION 1
Issue
To determine the validity of agreement signed between Tom and Susan.
Rules
The contract being an official agreement can be either written or oral. A contract in order to
be valid needs to have specifically six elements:
1. Offer: An offer or a promise is important as if there is no offer made by one party to
another there will be no contract.
2. Acceptance: After receiving an offer from one party there should be an acceptance by
another. Further, no contract shall be concluded if the parties are still into negotiations
or discussing not having accepted the offer (Koffman & Macdonald, 2010).
3. Intention to create a legal relation: As per Contract Act, it is important to intent to
create legal relations as one of the key requirement as a valid contract. In case of no
intention to create legal relations, the contract can be subject to a lawsuit.
4. Consideration: Consideration in a contract is meaning the exchange set between the
promisor and promises to make the contract legally valid (Chen-Wishart, 2012).
5. Capacity: the contract must be in a legal capacity to do so i.e., the parties involved in
a contract must be major.
6. Certainty: the terms and regulations made in the contract must be certain Expressly
not declared void to make it enforceable or considered valid.
Applicability of rules
As in the current case of Tom and Susan, the elements stated to make a contract valid are all
fulfilled. Tom makes a written offer to Susan to which she gives her acceptance. The
consideration of $100,000 and legal intent as well as the capacity of parties makes the
contract legally valid one.
Conclusion
Herein, the contract entered between Tom and Susan is a valid agreement as both parties’
legal intentions were clear and mutual consent was assured through the signature of both.
Therefore, Tom approach to pay Susan only $100,000 is valid.
3

QUESTION 2
Issue
Steve legal obligation to buy car from Jason
Rules
Offer and invitation to offer infers two different implications and thus should not be
considered equal. Though, an offer is a personal expression on showing its willingness to
another party to do or not to do anything. Offer is a proposal, which is definite, complete and
certain in all cases (McKendrick, 2014). Offer requires being communicated to another
person and legally binding on parties.
While Invitation to offer (treat) is an act to invite the other party to make a proposal. It is
prior to an offer. In the event of invitation to offer, there is no negotiation of terms of the
contract or a clear expression to make an offer.
Applicability of rule
Herein, this case Steve act was to induce Jason to make an invitation to offer with intent to
negotiate and create a contract. But nonetheless, Steve does not make any offer to make it
legally binding on him to accept Jason car.
Conclusion
Therefore, in this respective case, Jason does not have any right to make Steve legally bound
to buy his modified car as he makes an ‘invitation to offer’ rather than ‘offer’ that make it
fundamentally not legally binding on Steve to make the purchase.
QUESTION 3
Issue
In this case, the issue is to identify whether Harry holds defence to Carl negligence act.
Rule
According to Civil Liability Act in case of any loss due to negligence act on another as stated
in act of Perre v Apand Pty Limited (1999) the following conditions shall be applied:
 The duty of Care: the defendant has a responsibility towards the plaintiff recognized
by law. The famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson formed the modern law of
negligence which lays its foundation on duty of care and fault principles. There an
4

existence of legally recognized responsibility of obligation or duty (Schwartz &
Rowe, 2010).
 Breach of Duty: the defendant who intentionally exposes the plaintiff to the
considerable risk of loss, breaches the duty.
 Intention and/or Malice: furthermore establishing conditions of intent or malice which
applies in the event of gross negligence.
 Causation: Accordingly the result of negligent act or omission it is important that
injury is led by negligence. As in case of Volenti non-fit injuria is which is a legal
doctrine that states if someone willingly involves into a required position
acknowledging that it could lead to harm will not be able to claim against the
defendant (Kritchevsky, 2010).
 Injury: Though there is a breach of duty, plaintiff may yet not recover unless it has
proven defendant’s breach instigated a pecuniary injury.
 Damage: It is a monetary value of the harm done to the plaintiff.
Applicability of rule
Herein this case Carl has conducted a breach of duty and duty of care leading to health injury
and damage to Harry. Carl having no primary knowledge to cook sashimi could have avoided
the misconduct resulting in health illness to Harry. There was an act of negligence on part of
Carl.
Conclusion
Though Carl has to lead to the negligence conduct but nevertheless as per Volenti non fit
injuria doctrine of law Harry could have evaded the negligent conduct made by Carl as he
knew Carl had no knowledge to cook sashimi.
QUESTION 4
Issue
Rights of Betty as per Australian Consumer Law
Rule
According to the ACL, all usual rights are applicable when anyone shops with an Australian
online business (Ramsay, 2012). In case of any misleading conduct on the part of the online
site, the consumer has the right to repair, replace or refund, compensation for damage and
5

loss and warranties. It is important that online website competes on fairgrounds on basis of
price and quality.
Applicability of rule
Betty has the right under ACL to claim for damages against the Apple online website which
serves information which is misleading serving product products with the false specification.
Conclusion
Here in this case, Betty can claim against the online website for her rights as per ACL, as a
product so received by Betty is not in tune with the specification so stated by the website.
6

REFERENCES
Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford University Press.
Koffman, L., & Macdonald, E. (2010). The law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Kritchevsky, B. (2010). Tort Law Is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and
Federal Law in Negligence-Per-Se Litigation. Am. UL Rev., 60, 71.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press
(UK).
Ramsay, I. (2012). Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer
markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Schwartz, V. E., & Rowe, E. F. (2010). Comparative negligence. LexisNexis.
7