MLC101 Law for Commerce: Contract Law Case Study Solutions, T1 2020

This document presents a comprehensive analysis of two contract law case studies. The first case examines whether Rufus is in breach of contract by selling his house to Paul, focusing on the validity of acceptance and the implications of silence as acceptance. It concludes that no valid contract existed between Rufus and Allie. The second part of the first case considers Rufus's promise to give Allie two weeks to consider his offer and whether he could sell the house to Paul before the deadline. The second case study assesses whether Joe can enforce Kevin's promise to transfer his business to him in exchange for service equipment, arguing that Kevin's promise was a valid consideration for Joe's services, making Kevin liable for breach of agreement. The analysis references relevant Australian contract law and case precedents to support its conclusions. Desklib offers a wide array of similar solved assignments and past papers to aid students in their studies.

[Type the company name]
Case-Study
[Type the document subtitle]
SystemJP
[Pick the date]

Case study 1
(a) Will Rufus be breaching a valid contract with Allie if he sells his house to Paul?
A contract is essential to be communicated properly whether in written or oral, communicated here
represent offer made by one party is accepted by the other after listening all the facts, and with
mutual consent.
I- Issue identified in this situation was related to define whether Rufus was liable to breach the
agreement or not.
R- According to Contract Law, Australia Silences is not a valid acceptance for the contract, and the
officers to a means of communication cannot use it (Felthouse v Bindley, (1862).
A- A contract is essential to be communicated properly whether in written or oral, communicated here
represent offer made by one party is accepted by the other after listening all the facts, and with
mutual consent.
C- Hence here Rufus has not made any contract with Allie he is not responsible to breach any contract
because there was no valid agreement.
(b) Assuming Rufus had offered to sell his house to Allie on 1 June and had promised Allie that
he will give her two weeks to contemplate the offer, can Rufus sell his house to Paul on 9
June?
I- issue discussed in this question is to identify whether Rufus has authority to sell the House before
completing the time of thinking he allowed to accept or reject the offer or not.
R- A promise by Rufus to Allie is an implied condition imposed over the Rufus and Allie both. Rufus
has no right to sell his house to Poul before getting any reply about accepting or rejecting to buy the
house from Allie with in the two weeks.
A- Allie is liable to accept or reject the contract in expressed way and within the giver time, if she
failed to accept the proposal within the two weeks than Rufus could sell his house accordingly.

C. Allie has no right to claim on Rufus for breaching the agreement if she didn’t accept the offer in
the given time and Rufus can’t sell his house to other before completing the period, because a valid
agreement came into existence only after a valid acceptance in the given time (Williams v Roffey Bros
& Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, [1989]).
Case study 2
Advise Joe whether he can enforce the promise made by Kevin
I- Kevin promised to Joe, to transfer his business only in exchange of service equipment, but after
retirement he decided to hire Phil, to manage his business.
R- Australian contract law states that a consideration is a promise made by a party in exchange of any
service or completion of a promise. Past promises have no sufficient platforms for consideration but a
past service provided for any person to get something in exchange is called consideration (Australian
Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, 1954).
R- Here Joe is liable to enforce Kevin because; Joe handled the entire business effectively on the
promise of getting the ownership of the business, after two years, this promise was given in return of
the services and Joe completed his duties to remain in the business for two years, decision taken by
Kevin to Phil, son of his friend. This act made the breaching of the agreement.
C- Kevin was in fault and that made the Joe aggrieved by the act of not fulfilling the promise in
exchange (Taylor v Johnson, 1983). A lawfully obligatory enforceable agreement needs a suggestion
to enter into an agreement, approval of that offer, consideration, and no defences for not imposing
the agreement. Kevin was in misrepresentation, for not making the promise complete, that made
Joe liable to claim for this representation.

References
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, (1954) 92 CLR 424, High Court
Felthouse v Bindley, [1862] EWHC J35 [1862] 142 ER 1037, High Court(England and Wales).
Taylor v Johnson [1983] HCA 5, (1983) 151 CLR 422, High Court.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, [1989] EWCA 5, [1991] 1 QB 1; [1990] 1 All ER
512, Court of Appeal (England and Wales).