Law case 2 - HIRAC Law Case PDF

Preview

Summary

HIRAC Law Case...

Description

2. Issue: The main issue concerns whether a contract was formed between the two parties. In other words, we have to find out if there was an offer from Tina Turnaround (TT) and an acceptance of offer from Cammy Pty Ltd. Relevant law: Agreement – For a contract to be formed, there must be an agreement between the two parties. One party must make an offer and the other party must accept that offer. Offer is the willingness of a party to form a contractual relationship with another (other) party (parties), it contains terms and information, and most of the time the target of the offer. Acceptance is the willingness of the offered party to enter the contractual relationship with the offeror on the terms and conditions as specified in the offer. Both can be expressed in written or spoken form. There are several conditions that may make an acceptance of contract invalid, this include: - The offeror has limit the content of the acceptance so that it could only contain the terms of the offer. - The acceptance has no terms that change the content and results of the contract materially - The notification by the offeror of the objection to the extra terms given in the acceptance Counter offer is when the acceptance contains condition that materially change the content and result of the contract. Application – arguments on the facts TT first made an offer to sell its fruits to Cammy, with specific details include 15 tons of goods at first class quality, price at 5,000 per ton net. Delivery at Cammy’s store in Melbourne and payment to be made in cash in 7 days. This is specific enough, with a particular target and it is therefore qualified to be an offer. Cammy Pty acceptance, besides the original offer, contains these additional conditions: free delivery to the store, and shipment to be made in three equal lots at approximately 10 days apart. This does not constitute an acceptance as it changes the fundamentals of the contract. Firstly, TT did not mention the fee for delivery, so when Cammy required free shipment, the content of the offer was changed. Delivery in three lots means that fees will be incurred significantly higher than delivery in one lot. In addition, raspberry, the ingredient used to make raspberry pulp is spoiled easily, and by requiring three separate shipments, Cammy forces TT to incur storage fee to ensure the fruits are not spoiled. If it is stored in normal refrigerator, the raspberries will be spoiled in 2 to 3 day, and TT has to keep the large amount of

raspberries in industrial freezers to keep them from going bad (How Long to Keep / Best Way to Store Raspberries — Fresh, Raw | StillTasty.com - Your Ultimate Shelf Life Guide, no date). The “acceptance” from Cammy has made it difficult for TT to provide the berry for Cammy without incurring additional costs, which would be significantly higher. In fact, this is a counter offer from Cammy as it materially changed the content of the contract materially regarding the fees and prices. This means has to accept this counter offer for the contract to be formed. Since TT refuses to deliver the pulp, that means they did not accept the counter offer and there was no contract formed. Supporting case Hyde v Wrench (1840) is a classic case of counter offer which supports this view. In both cases, the offeree made an acceptance on the condition that the content of the contract be changed in terms of price. In other words, this was a counter offer, and the offeror now becomes the offeree with the right to accept or reject the counter offer. Conclusion As there was no contract formed since there was no agreement between the two parties, TT was not in breach of contract and Cammy will not succeed in taking action against TT.

3. Issue: The issue at hand is whether the representation made by Harry’s solicitor constitute a promissory estopel Relevant legal rule: A promissory estoppel occurs when: The defendant makes a promise to the claimant to perform or avoid performing an action. The claimant relies upon that promises to act or restrain from acting. The claimant’s response has left him with negative consequences. The defendant knows that the claimant will rely on his promise to act or avoid acting. The consequence was severe that not enforcing the promise will be unfair to the plaintiff. Application of the law: In this case, Harry’s solicitor did say that it might be possible for Lee to pay seven days after the deadline. However, he also said that he had to ask for instruction from Harry, which meant that he was not the one to make the decision. Therefore, Lee should not have be 100% sure that he solicitor guaranteed him delayed payment. Nevertheless, if Harry did not agree to wait for Lee to raise enough fund to buy the real estate, he should have contact Lee directly or indirectly through his solicitor to let him know. In this case, he failed to provide notification for Lee and waited until day three to cancel the contract. This has encouraged Lee to believe that his request was approved of and he continued with the funding for three days before he was rejected. Since the funding took 7 days, it was half the time of the funding process, and it can be assumed that Lee raised a significant amount of money. This was to his detriment, as he was rejected and had to return the money he borrowed. This would cost him a lot of trouble to cancel the borrowing contracts that he had signed or the opportunities that he could spend the money on. Returning the money would be costly or even impossible. Thus, it would be injustice if the contract was not to be enforced. Supporting cases Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] is a law case that support this view. In both cases, the defendant has the duty to notify the plaintiff as soon as possible. Time was of such urgency because the work involved would be a process that takes a long time, and in both cases the notification was so late that 40% (and 3/7) of the work was done. The promise has led the promised party to detriment. Conclusion

Lee can sue Harry for breach of contract. The promise made by Harry’s solicitor was not enough but his and Harry’s silence amounts to promissory estoppel.

Reference: Hyde v Wrench (1840) Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988]...