Contract Law : 161069
The issue which has been identified in the given situation is that whether the driver if XJ8 Jaguar motor car has to pay Fred based in the rules of past consideration in contract law
A past consideration is considered as a bad consideration in contract law.
In the case of Eastwood v Kenyon  EngR 90,  11 Ad & E 438, 113 Eng Rep 482 the plaintiff had taken a loan for the purpose of educating his girl in order to enhance the prospect of her marriage. Upon the marriage of the girl the husband made a promise to repay the loan taken by the defendant. However he did not pay it. It was held by the court that the plaintiff cannot enforce the promise as it was a past consideration as it was completed before promise.
In the same way Fred has already done the act before the promise to pay had been made by the driver of XJ8 jaguar car and therefore it is a past consideration and cannot be enforced by law.
The driver has no liability to pay jack based on the rules of past consideration.
Whether there is a legal contract between the credit union with Daniel and Elena or not based on the provisions of Minors’ Contract Act 1969.
A minor is a person who has not yet attained the age of 18 years
All contract with a minor are void unless contracts such as contract of necessities
According to section 6 of the Minors’ Contract Act 1969 every contract which have been entered into by the minor is unenforceable against the minor and otherwise has affect that the minor has reached majority. however if the court finds it just and reasonable to do so the court at its discretion can cancel the contract or make the aggrieved party receive some kind of compensation in relation to the contract
In the given situation it has been provided that Daniel and Elena had made no misrepresentation in relation to their age. The credit union made a mistake while calculating their age. The credit union must have had the knowledge that the minors cannot provide a valid consent. They should not have approved the loan of Daniel and Elena. In addition s they have already sold the vehicle and recovered the amount they cannot make any further claim.
A Claim cannot be made
Whether there has been misrepresentation or not Eddie to Malcolm and Lucy as per the four principles of misrepresentation and whether Malcolm and Lucy are entitled to any damages or not
The four elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are
- The party made a false statement intentionally
- The statement is in relation to a material fact
- The statement had been made to induce the party to the contract
- The other party actually acted based the inducement
In the case of Derry v Peek (1889) 5 T.L.R. 625 it had been ruled by the court that where a person intentionally makes a fraudulent misrepresentation the other party is entitled to rescind the contract as well as claim damages.
Eddie gas made a false statement intentionally
The statement is in relation to the condition of the house which is a material fact
The statement has been made to induce Malcolm and Lucy
Malcolm and Lucy relied in the statement to get into the contract
Thus fraudulent misrepresentation is established
In the given situation Malcolm and Lucy can rescind the contract and also claim damages which have been suffered by them such as the motel cost.
There is misrepresentation and the parties can claim damages
Whether the elderly widow can make a claim against Dr Donald or not with respect to the rules of unconscionable bargain
According to the case of James v Morgan (1663) 83 Eng Rep 323 an unconscionable bargain is a situation where a person entraps a deal on gross unfair terms like purchasing property for a person at a grossly undervalued price or providing a loan at extortionate terms to a person who is in dire need. It is a kind of dealing which would not be entered upon by any reasonable person. In such situation the court modifies or nullifies such transactions.
In the given situation Mr Donald has entered upon in a deal which has unfair terms as he wants to purchase a property at a much lower rate
The elderly widow is in dire needs to get the elderly house and thus accepts the deal which no reasonable person would have done
She did not have a bargaining power
Thus unconscionable bargain has been caused and the court can modify or nullify such bargain
The elderly widow can make a claim
The issue is to analyze the validity of restraint of trade clause between Monica and Isabella and Monica and Fiona.
In the case of Nordenfeldt v Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns and Ammunition Company  AC 535 it was stated by the court that to protect business interest a restraint of trade clause can be imposed
In Lindner v Murdock’s Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628 it was stated that a restraint of trade clause can only be applied in order to ensure reasonable interest of business and not to subject the other party to additional detriment
Stenhouse Australia v Phillips  AC 391 stated that a party cannot prevent another from giving competition
In Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Warburton (No 2)  NSWSC 386 it was stated that the clause can only be imposed for a period of 8 months.
From the above discussed rules it can be concluded that additional burden cannot be imposed on the parties other than what is required to protect the legitimate interest of the business. Here it can be evidently stated that the clause which have been imposed upon Fiona is unreasonable as it puts much more burden and on the other hand the clause with Isabella is justified
The clause with Isabella is justified and the clause on Fiona is unjustified
The issue in this case is to determine whether a the contractual liabilities of Martha towards Andy have been discharged and if yes, when
According to section 7(3)(c) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 the parties to the contract can cancel the contract in case it is clear that the other party is going to violate a term of a contract. According to section 7(4) of the CRA the party may cancel the contract of the performance of such term is essential to the party, in section 7(5) it has been stated that the party cannot cancel the contract if they have affirmed a future breach.
In the given situation Martha had told Andy to start the painting work by 1st Australia, however it was informed by Andy that he would not be able to do so before 20th august. On 20th July Martha informed Andy that she is appointing another person to pain at high cost. Thus Martha can cancel the contract as she clearly knew that Andy is not going to perform its terms. In addition the performance of the term was necessary for Martha. Thus she can discharge the contract. The contract was discharged on 20th July when it was notified to Andy.
The contract has been discharged on 20th July
The issue which has to be determined in this case is the extent of damages which can be claimed by MaCallum from the cab company
In the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex Ch 341 it had been stated by the court that with respect to the principles of remoteness of damages in the law of contract a party is only entitled to claim losses which are considered to have reasonably arise naturally from the breach of the contract or those which may be supposed reasonably made in contemplation of the parties at time when the contract was made.
In the given situation it is not reasonably natural for the cab company to assume that MaCallum will lose a million dollar contract if he misses the flight. Thus as per the above discussed principles the cab company is only liable to pay for the missing flight.
The cab company is liable to pay for the missing flight to MaCallum and it could not foresee about the loss of the million dollar contract
Whether Chris can make a claim of the remaining $750 according to the rules of part consideration in contract from Beth
In the case of Foakes v Beer (1883-84) L.R. 9 App. Cas 605 it has been ruled by the court that a part consideration for the settlement of claim is not a valid consideration in the law of contract. The case applied the principles provided by the Pinnel’s case 1602 5 Rep, 117
In the given situation Beth owed Chris $3000. However he only paid Chris an amount of $2250 which was $750 less than the original amount. According to the principles of the above discussed case a part consideration is not valid. Thus Beth cannot make a claim that he paid $2250 in full settlement of the contract. In the given situation Chris can make a valid claim for the remaining amount of $750 from Beth as per the principles of pinnels case.
A claim can be made by Chris against Beth as part consideration is not considered as a valid consideration in the law of contracts
One clause of dispute resolution
According to the clause of dispute resolution the party to the dispute which is the employer and the employee have to undertake mandatory arbitration. The employee would be allowed to bring in a third person for personal assistance. The decision provided by the arbitrator would be binding on the parties to the dispute
Leave – The employees would be entitled leaves. Each employee would be provided with one casual leave and one sick leave every month. The employees would also be allowed to take other forms of leaves which have been approved by the employment legislation.
Notice- the employer and the employee have the duty to provide each other with a minimum notice period in lieu of which the employer may pay or charge compensation. The notice period for the purpose of resigning the job is one month.
Contractual Remedies Act 1979
Derry v Peek (1889) 5 T.L.R. 625
Eastwood v Kenyon  EngR 90,  11 Ad & E 438, 113 Eng Rep 482
Foakes v Beer (1883-84) L.R. 9 App. Cas 605
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex Ch 341
James v Morgan (1663) 83 Eng Rep 323
Lindner v Murdock’s Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628
Minors’ Contract Act 1969.
Nordenfeldt v Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns and Ammunition Company  AC 535
Pinnel’s case 1602 5 Rep, 117
Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Warburton (No 2)  NSWSC 386
Stenhouse Australia v Phillips  AC 391