Fundamentals of Law for Australian Woollen Pty Ltd -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theFundamentals of Law for Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd. Answer: The issue which has to be determined in relation to the given scenario is that whether a claim for a breach of contract can be brought by Ian against Ben. This would be done through analyzing whether a contract has been formed between Ian and Ben or not. Rules A contract only comes to an existence when the elements offer and acceptance are addressed appropriately in accordance to the legal provisions associated with them. An offer is an expression made by a person to another so that the other person may willingly accept its terms. An offer is differentiated from an invitation to deal (having no legal significance) based on the completeness of the expression. As provided in the case of AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454 an offer is complete when it consists of elements like nature of services to be provided, time and date of services, price to be paid and a time period till which an offer can be accepted. In addition in the case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 it was ruled by the court that if a reasonable person is induced by wordings of the expression to enter the agreement it would be a complete offer. An offer comes to an end through the process of revocation. One of the forms of revocation of an offer is through its rejection. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 it was ruled by the court that as soon as the offer is rejected impliedly or expressly it comes to an end. According to the rules of postal rule stated in Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B Ald 681 as soon as the letter is posted it constitutes an acceptance. Similar provisions are applicable in relation to an email as provided in the case of Thomas anr v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306 Application In the given situation a valid offer had been made by Ben to Ian which had to be accepted before 1st may. The offer was in relation to giving a speech for an event. This was a complete offer as a reasonable person would be induced to get into the contract through its words as it contained price, date and nature of services to be provided and thus was a complete offer in nature. However Ian notified Ben that he is likely to be unavailable for the event as he was hoping to be selected to give speech in another event on the same date. This expression of Ian expressly accounts to the rejection of the offer which means that it has been revoked and has come to an end according to the rules of revocation as discussed above. It had been provided by Ian that he may notify Ben in case there was a change in the circumstances. The notification had been made through an email by Ian. However such notification would have been a new offer made by Ian as the original offer has already ceased to exists. Ian had made an email which stated that he wants to accept the offer and provide the speech as he was not selected for the event. However the email was not read by Ben as it was transferred to the spam folder of the email. Although the email accounts to a valid acceptance through the postal rule according to which the acceptance was valid as soon as the email had been made by Ian, as the offer has already elapsed it cannot be accepted by Ian any longer. Conclusion As the acceptance of Ian was after the offer had been rejected it does not form a contract between Ian and Ben. Issue 2 Whether there is a contract between Ben and Sharon Rules It is a general rule in the law of contacts that it is not necessary for a contract to be in writing in order to be binding. As stated in the case of Wood v Scarth (1858) 1 FF 293 a contract can only take place between the parties if they have agreed upon the same thing in the same sense also know as consensus ad idem or the meeting of minds. In the case of King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd (1897) TLR 98 it was ruled by the court that where the parties are mistaken in relation to the facts of the case the contract may be void or may be voidable upon the option of the parties. The mistaken can lead to the recession of the contract if it can be proved that the mistake was in relation to a material aspect of the contract. In the case of Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 the court ruled that the where the parties are dealing through correspondences the mistake as to the identity of the parties will make the contract void. In case of a mistake the court may also provide a remedy in relation to equity for any loss which has been faced by the parties to the contract as provided by Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62 Application In the given situation it has been provided that Ben has approached Sharon to provide a speech in his educational institution. The speech is in relation to the subject of astronomy. However Sharon mistakenly believes that the speech is in relation to astrology and accepts the contract. In the above discussion it has been provided that were there is no meeting of minds and a common mistake exits than the contract can be avoided and the parties to it can claim such situation as a defense. Here Ben believed that Sharon was a astronomy expert and offered the speech to her, whereas she was an astrology expert. In addition Sharon accepted the contract as she believed that the speech was in relation to astrology. Thus there is mistake on the part of both the parties to the contract. Therefore in the given situation Ben can claim common mistake as a defense and Sharon can get some compensation as per the rules of equity The contract not being in writing does not have any legal issues Conclusion Ben can claim the defense in from of mistake under contract law. Issue The issue which needs to be determined in relation to the scenario is that whether Chengs or Gordons claim is stronger in relation to the car Rule In case a contract has been entered upon by two parties and one of them had a belief that the other was a third party (which means any other person) a mistake in relation to identity takes place. There is a distinction made by law in relation to such position where the parties are present or absent during the negotiation. In the case of King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd the aggrieved party had a belief that it was dealing with a reputable firm whereas the firm was rough the court held the contract to be valid as the mistake was related to attributes and not identity. In case the parties were physically present and the above discussed mistake needs to be established it has to be shown by the innocent party that they had the intention of dealing with some other person, the other party had knowledge in relation to such intentions, the identity was regarded as very crucial to the contract and reasonable steps had been taken by them in relation to the verification of the identity as provided in Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243 In the case Lake v Simmons [1927] AC 487 of it had been ruled by the court that where the possessions of the goods have passed to an innocent party before the contract is avoided the third party would have a good title to such goods. Application In the given situation it is event that Gordon had the intention of dealing with the Mayor of the city and not Mary. Mary also had the knowledge if such intentions of Gordan in relation to given the car prior to payment. The negotiations took place between the parties in physical presence of each other. Thus there was a mistake in identity and the contract should be void. However Gordon did not take reasonable steps to verify that the Mary was the mayor of the town. He concluded the fact based on unsure assumptions. Thus the contract can be declared as voidable and not void. Further through the application of the Simmons case it can be provided that as the contract between Gordon and Mary was voidable and was not avoided before the car had been sold to Cheng, the title of the car would be bestowed on Cheng Lawfully Conclusion Therefore from the above discussion it can be concluded that Chengs claim would be stronger than Gordon according to the rules of contract References Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B Ald 681 AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd (1897) TLR 98 Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243 Thomas anr v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306 Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62 Wood v Scarth (1858) 1 FF 293