The main issue in this case is whether the time is a relevant essence or not, and the validity of the contract is also in question. In this case both the parties are blaming each other but there was no concurrent proof in relation to that. The time for execution of the contract was changed without proper notification to the appropriate party. The performance from both the parties is stipulated in accordance with the specified time. If it has been changed with the free consent of the other party, then also there is no comprehensive evidence in front of the Ld. Court, for that reason making any decision in relation to that depending upon assumption would not be fair.
De Jong, the plaintiff, was looking to purchase land from Carpenter, the defendant. By virtue of this, the solicitor of the defendant drafted a contract which stated that the sale will depend upon obtaining finance by the purchaser from a particular source before completion of 28 days. He retained a copy of this contract and sent a matching part of the contract to the solicitor of the purchaser. The solicitor of the defendant has been instructed by the defendant to introduce a new condition into the contract which provides completion within a certain period of time “of the essence of the contract”. This modification was duly made by the solicitor of the defendant in his copy only and the solicitor of the purchaser was neither notified nor aware of this modification. For that reason it was not recorded in the copy of the purchaser. Consequently, both of the solicitors were agree to amend the stipulated period of time in the finance passage from 28 to 14 days. But there was no conclusive evidence that the purchaser gave his free consent to it. Signed copies of the contracts were exchanged among them. But before completion from the part of the defendant as to the contract, plaintiff sought specific performance.
As per the observation made by the court and decision given by the court, it has been considered that the decision has given in favor of the defendant rather defendant has won the case.
Proper acceptance of the contract with free consent is a necessary element of every contract. Without the free consent of either part no agreement can be treated as a valid contract, in any contract if free consent from any of the party is not present then that would be a void contract . The legislations governing the contract laws in Australia, also specifies that any contract without the free consent of the parties is void and do not have any legal enforceability.
Identification made by the court:
The court has observed that there is no conclusive evidence which can support the fact that the defendant has given his consent to the modification made in the contract. It shows that there is a possibility of lack of free consent from the part of the defendant. Any decision based upon any assumption is not possible for the end of justice, so it would not be a valid contract as no assumption or adjustment is permissible with the basic requirements of a valid contract and free consent is a basic requirement.
In this case Lora cannot enforce Belinda to buy the car in stipulated time, as the new terms which has been introduced by Lora, are inserted into the contract without the consent of Bellinda, even at the time of discussion Belinda knows that the car has fulfilled the criteria that is within 50,000 K.M but in actual it has run more than that, so like the previous discussed case, this contract is also not valid and not legally enforceable due to lack of free consent from Belinda.
In this case Lee is not guilty, as the two conditions which are to be complied are to stop the vehicle and to render assistance as is necessary. Here the word ‘necessary’ implies that if any person is injured or suffers any type of loss then the immediate assistance which is required for that person is to be rendered. But if things are alright and no assistance is needed or asked then the other party cannot do anything except stopping the vehicle. Here Lee has complied the first clause and the clause is not required as the person was helped by others and things were seems alright as well as under control. The general meaning of the word is required assistance. This words itself implies the requirement.
Generally Judges follows three rules of interpretation of statutes, those are Literal rule, Golden rule and mischief rule. Literal rule is the most common one, in this the actual grammatical meaning of the words used in the statutes are taken into consideration. In golden rule the inner meaning or the implied meaning of the provisions is considered. In case of mischief rule when there any conflict among legislations then the detection of the defect and finding out the remedy to solve the conflict is previewing within the scope of mischief rule.
There is no difference among Statute, Legislation and Act, all of them are same and equal.
Here Bruce should file a suit for specific performance. Maud breaches the contract, in any kind of breach of contract there are three remedies, those are specific performance, damages and injunction. In this case Bruce can go for either specific performance or damages but considering the financial condition of Maud, Bruce should go for specific performance of the contract.
Under this circumstances Amy cannot claim the amount of $ 4,000, as this agreement has domestic elements and the courts have presumed that if any agreement has social or domestic elements then such an agreement will not be legally binding.
Ripley used to reside in a big house; he was a affluent and aged man. Ripley’s sister (Wakeling), is a married woman and reside in England, whom Ripley wrote a request to live with him in his house at Sydney. In addition to that request, he promised to leave them his belongings and Wakeling can reside in his house for free.
For that reason, Wakelings departed from England, sell out her properties, and resigned from her job to migrate to Sydney.
After a year, both the parties had a major deviation. In result, Ripley sold his assets and changed his will. Then Wakeling sued Ripley for breach of contract.
Whether domestic or social elements can bind legally or not.
It was held by the Ld. court that the situation which arose from the family members, consequence to a legally binding contract.
Opinion With Reason:
This decision was appropriate as migration has made depending upon the contract.
Subjective test depends upon the subject matter of case while in objective test the main object of the Act is taken into consideration.
In case of determining the intention, generally objective test is followed by the courts.
The main argument from the defendant was that the advertisement was a general one for every one, so it is not possible to enter into a contract with the entire world.
The court held that its may be for the entire world but if any one comes forward and fulfills the specified conditions then with that person the company enters into a contract.
The offer was made to the world at large.
Any person by performing specified conditions can enter into that contract.
By giving a subsequent advertisement for withdrawal the offer it can be withdrawn.
Generally in invitation to treat there no specific condition to be fulfilled and it does not contain any commercial affluence, for that reason it is not an invitation to treat.
Subjective test is implemented depending upon the main subject matter of the case while in case of objective test the main object of the case or issue where from dispute arose is taken into account.
Here the court has followed the subjective test for determing the main object of the advertisement.
There is no contract between Jene and the shop keeper, as there was merely an invitation to offer, here Jene has made the offer which is not accepted by the shopkeeper, so without acceptance there is no contract.
John and Tuan can file a suit against the advertiser, as it was an offer not invitation to offer, here any person who will fulfill the condition, that is to return the dog shall automatically enters into the contract with that person, and then the advertiser is bound to perform his obligation.
Bill cannot enforce Dave to sell the car as it was merely an invitation to offer not an actual offer, here Bill made the offer to Dave that was not accepted by Dave, and without acceptance there is no contract can be considered.
In postal rule of acceptance, it completes when the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the person who made the offer.
Here Kim can sue Huyen for damages as Huyen hide major information from Kim regarding the sold article.
Terry cannot sue Dave as terry wanted to leave the job which was not legal so the subsequent contract between Terry and Dave is a void contract.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was attempted for greater utilization. The agreement between the parties denotes to accept payments in part of a debt in full settlement. The court has been reluctant to override cases like Foakes v Beer as it have formed portion of the common law for such a long period.
Justice Arden in the case of Collier v P & MJ Wright Ltd, has acknowledged the principal that High Tees could be quench the right of a creditor in full settlement of a dept in such situation.
In this famous case an ex-wife tried to take benefit of the rule that had been acknowledged in the High Trees case, to compel her husband to pay maintenance to her.
In this case the court held that there is no scope for application of promissory estoppels, it can be used as a defence but not as a cause of action.
In Lagione v Hateley case it was observed by the court that the rule of promissory estoppels can be used only as defence, no cause of action can be sought depending upon promissory estoppels.
In present days promissory estoppel exists in a strict manner, it does not confirm any cause opf action but defence can be made depending upon this rule.
It denotes that if the relying party changes his position due to the faith of the promise, will suffer from detriment, if it was allowed to depart from his enforcement of former contractual rights.
Parol Evidence Rule is considered as a law which restricts the party to a written agreement from disclosing any extrinsic proof.
The contract between Yvonne and Marcel and sale of tyres by Yvonne can be taken in account. Marcel has to show the tyres defect and bill of sales for claiming his part.
If there is already damage before taking goods in hand, then the signature of authoritative party if there is any damage
Exclusion clauses are that which prevent parties to the contract.
Constructive notice is taken as legal fiction which ensures that people should understand even if they do not hold any knowledge about it.
None of the mentioned terms are discussed as these conditions are implied.
The purchaser will expect the same quality of product which was provided earlier. This expectation is implied.
In the above mentioned two statutes the word that implies the object of the statute to a certain extend are ‘Fair’ and ‘Competition’.
The food supplier cannot sue John as he is incompetent to contract, and the food supplier entered into a contract with a minor, therefore the contract is void.
(a) iii) a misrepresentation
(b) iii) a misrepresentation
Fraudulent misrepresentation is done with an intention to deceive but innocent misrepresentation is done due to lack of knowledge.
Raymond cannot claim it as Maria disposed her property with her own consent.
Economic duress in a contract arose when a party to the contract threatens to cancel the contract unless the other party consented to their anxiety.
E.g. John and Ronny enters into a contract where john will sell umbrellas to Ronny but suddenly John refuses to sell it unless Ronny increases the price of the goods.
Yes, Mark’s behaviour constitute unconscionable conduct, as knowingly the facts he took undue advantages.
2. By agreement;
3. By subsequent agreement;
4. By operation of law;
5. By election after breach;
6. By frustration
1) Discharge of contract means ending the contract. These are the ways to end a contract:
2) It mainly depends upon the terms, object and implications of the contract.
3) If there is no fault from the parties, and situation restrict the parties from further obligations then it shall be discharged by frustration.
4) Damages provided for infringement of the right. Punitive damages means damages give with example of a similar kind breach or obligation. Yes, punitive damages are provided by the courts in relevant suites.
5) As the court held that Baxendale could only be responsible for the losses that were usually foreseeable, or if Hadley had specified his particular situation in advance.
6) Tyre dealer shall be liable for this incident, and in the second case the answer will remain same as the above.
Barling, Julian and Michael Robert Frone, The Psychology Of Workplace Safety (American Psychological Association, 2004)
Beale, H. G and Denis Tallon, Contract Law (Hart Pub., 2002)
Br?mmelmeyer, Christoph, 'Principles Of European Insurance Contract Law' (2011) 7 European Review of Contract Law
Di Girolamo, Nick, Recent Reforms To S.54 Of The Insurance Contract Act 1984 (NSW Young Lawyers, the Law Society of NSW, 2004)
Elliott, Catherine and Frances Quinn, Contract Law (Pearson Longman, 2007)
Gale, Chris, 'The Business Of Business Law' (2007) 49 Managerial Law
Harrison, Jeffrey L and Jules Theeuwes, Law And Economics (W.W. Norton & Co., 2008)
International Labour Law Reports, Editors, 'Austral.1 AUSTRALIA' (1996) 17 International Labour Law Reports Online
Kokkoris, Ioannis, Merger Control In Europe (Routledge, 2011)
Mann, Trischa, Australian Law Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Morgan, Jonathan, Great Debates In Contract Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)
Olsson, L. T, Guide To Uniform Production Of Judgments (Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)
Richards, Paul, Law Of Contract (Pearson Longman, 2007)
Slapper, Gary and David Kelly, The English Legal System (Cavendish, 2004)
Slorach, J. Scott and Jason G Ellis, Business Law (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Vollm, B., 'AS03-01 - Reactions And Consequences Following Judgements By The European Court Of Human Rights In The UK' (2012) 27 European Psychiatry
 David Kelly, Ann E. M Holmes and Ruth Hayward, Business Law (Cavendish, 2005).
 K. L Fletcher and K. L Fletcher, The Law Of Partnership In Australia (Lawbook Co, 2007).
 Denis J Keenan and Sarah Riches, Business Law (Pearson Longman, 2007).
 Ewan MacIntyre, Business Law (Pearson Longman, 2008).
 Paul Richards, Law Of Contract (Pearson Longman, 2007).
 J. Scott Slorach and Jason G Ellis, Business Law (Oxford University Press, 2007).
 H. G Beale and Denis Tallon, Contract Law (Hart Pub., 2002).
 Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn, Contract Law (Pearson Longman, 2007).
 Christoph Br?mmelmeyer, 'Principles Of European Insurance Contract Law' (2011) 7 European Review of Contract Law.
 Chris Gale, 'The Business Of Business Law' (2007) 49 Managerial Law.
 B. Vollm, 'AS03-01 - Reactions And Consequences Following Judgements By The European Court Of Human Rights In The UK' (2012) 27 European Psychiatry.
 L. T Olsson, Guide To Uniform Production Of Judgments (Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999).
 Nick Di Girolamo, Recent Reforms To S.54 Of The Insurance Contract Act 1984 (NSW Young Lawyers, the Law Society of NSW, 2004).
 Lars Meyer, Non-Performance And Remedies Under International Contract Law Principles And Indian Contract Law (P. Lang, 2010).
 Jeffrey L Harrison and Jules Theeuwes, Law And Economics (W.W. Norton & Co., 2008).
 Julian Barling and Michael Robert Frone, The Psychology Of Workplace Safety (American Psychological Association, 2004).
 Jonathan Morgan, Great Debates In Contract Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
 Gary Slapper and David Kelly, The English Legal System (Cavendish, 2004).
 Trischa Mann, Australian Law Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2009).
 Ioannis Kokkoris, Merger Control In Europe (Routledge, 2011).
 Editors International Labour Law Reports, 'Austral.1 AUSTRALIA' (1996) 17 International Labour Law Reports Online.