Wiki Question 2 Contract Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Wiki Question 2 Contract Law PDF

Description

TABL1710 Business and the Law WIKI TASK – CONTRACT LAW Instructions 1.

The following problem question is the Wiki Task for Contract Law (topic covered in weeks 3 and 4).

2.

Read the problem question and then prepare your response.

3.

The requirements of each role (plaintiff, defendant, judge, commentator) are set out at the end of the task and you must prepare your response in accordance with the instructions. The instructions are largely similar to the instructions provided in the Wiki Instructions.

4.

You should closely follow the instructions for your role. You do not need to do anything further than answer the specific questions for your role.

5.

Ensure that your part of the Wiki Task is submitted on time.

Problem Question Petra Quach is a project manager of Delta Property Pty Ltd (Delta) which carries on a business of developing commercial office spaces throughout Australia. Delta’s business involves buying property, refurbishing the properties and then leasing the properties to other businesses. Delta recently purchase a property in Sydney which it intends to convernt into a co-working space and which it has dubbed “Project Share”. Petra is in charge of Project Share. Petra contacts Joe Tolt who operates Prime Contracting Pty Ltd (Prime), which is a construction company which regularly refurbishes commercial premises. Petra asks Joe to give her a quote for the cost of the construction work for Project Share. Joe sends Petra an email which states “We can get the job done for $750,000 and it will takes 20 weeks to complete.” After considering the proposal, Petra replies and tells Joe that she will have contracts prepared on those terms. Petra sends Joe a contract between Delta and Prime. Joe signs the contract on behalf of Prime and sends the contract back to Delta. The contract is similarly signed by Petra on behalf of Delta. In the contract, Delta is referred to as the “Principal” and Prime is referred to as the “Contractor”. The terms of the contract include (but are not limited to): 3.1

The Contractor will carry out the construction works.

4.3

The Principal shall progressively pay the Contractor the contract sum of $300,000 in proportion to the percentage of construction works carried out.

6.2

The Contractor must complete the construction works within 10 weeks.

6.3

Prime commences the construction works and the works progress without any issues. However, after of construction work and , Delta has failed to pay Prime any part of the contract sum. Joe writes to Petra and notifies her that Delta is in breach of the contract due to its failure to pay Prime any part of the contract sum. Petra replies and tells Joe that Delta is not going to pay Prime any amount because Prime is in breach of the contract because it is five weeks behind schedule and it appears that it will take Prime another five weeks to compelte the construction works. Petra also tells Joe that Prime will be liable to pay Delta a large sum of money pursuant to clause 6.3 of the Contract. Joe examines the contract and discovers that the terms of the contract are not the terms that he thought he had agreed to. Joe writes back to Petra and tells her that he hasn’t breached the terms of the contract which they agreed to. Joe also tells Petra that he believes that . Joe writes that if Delta does not pay Prime within 10 days, Prime will accept the repudiation and terminate the contract, then sue Delta for damages. After 10 days, Petra writes back and tells Joe that Detla has not repudiated the contract and, if Joe terminates the contract, then Prime will actually be repudiating the contract. Finally, without telling Petra, Prime leaves the site without completion the construction work. Prime has now commenced legal proceedings against Delta for breach of contract.

Instructions: Lawyers for the Plaintiff You are the lawyers for Prime Contracting Pty Ltd. Joe has come to you on behalf of Prime and instructed you to commence legal proceedings against Delta Property Pty Ltd on the basis that Delta repudiated the contract by not paying Prime in accordance with the contract and is liable to pay damages to Prime for its repudiation. You need to write a legal argument for Prime. To do so, you should write a legal argument which follows the following structure and addresses the following points: 1.

Introduction: Draft an introduction which gives a brief summary of Prime’s argument. You should refer to the relevel legal rules relating to formation of contracts.

2.

Terms of the contract: You need to establish that the terms of the contract are that the contract sum is $750,000 and Prime had 20 weeks to complete the construction work.

3.

Essential terms of the contract: You need to argue that Delta’s obligation to pay Prime was either a condition or an intermediate term of the contract. You should refer to the relevant legal rules which determine whether a term will be a condition, intermediate term or warranty.

4.

Breach of contract: You need to argue that Delta breached the contract by failing to progressively pay Prime the contract sum as provided by the contract.

5.

Repudiation: You need to argue that: 5.1

Delta’s continued refusal to pay Prime was a repudiation of the contract; and

5.2

Prime properly accepted Detla’s repudiation and terminated the contract.

You should refer to the relevant legal rules relating to repudiation of contracts. Further instructions: •

Each of the above tasks should be completed separately.

•

You are advocating on behalf of Prime so do not consider any counter arguments or defences which may be raised by the defendant, Delta.

•

For each of points 2, 3, 4 and 5 you must go through the IRAC process of identifying the issue, stating the relevant legal rules, and then applying those legal rules to the facts to reach a conclusion.

•

All of the relevant legal rules you need to rely on are contained in the lectures or textbook. You can do further legal research if you want to, but it is not essential.

•

The only area of law you should be considering for this problem question is contract law. Do not consider any legislation. Do not consider the Building and Construction Security of Payment 1999. Do not consider any legal rules relating to “liquidated damages”. Do not consider any legal rules relating to negligence. Do not consider the Australian Consumer Law.

•

Your response should be a minimum of 1,500 words and a maximum of 2,000 words.

Instructions: Lawyers for the Defendant You are the lawyers for Delta Property Pty Ltd. Your client is being sued by Prime in relation to a contract between Delta and Prime. Your client has instructed you to draft a defence to the claim. You need to write a legal defence for Delta. To do so, you should write a defence which is set out in the following structure and addresses the following points: 1.

Terms of the contract: You need to argue that the terms of the contract are that the contract sum is $300,000 and Prime had 10 weeks to complete the construction work. You should refer to the rules which relate to a signed contract and the parol evidence rule.

2.

Essential terms of the contract: You need to argue that Delta’s obligation to pay Prime was a warranty (i.e. it was not a condition or intermediate term). You should refer to the relevant legal rules which determine whether a term will be a condition, intermediate term or warranty.

3.

Delay damages: You need to argue that Prime is required to pay Delta delay damages for its failure to complete the contract on time (refer to clause 6.3 of the contract). This argument requires you to rely on the contract. Make sure you state how much money Prime must pay Delta.

4.

Repudiation: You need to argue that Prime did not properly accept Delta’s repudiation of the contract and terminate the contract (i.e. when Prime attempted to terminate the contract it did not follow the relevant legal rules to do so). You should identify what the requirements are for a party to terminate a contract for repudiation and whether Prime followed those steps.

Further instructions: •

Each of the above tasks should be completed separately.

•

You are advocating on behalf of Delta. Your response should address the questions in the problem and the submissions of the plaintiff’s lawyers. You also need to consider whether there are any counter arguments which can be raised by the defendant.

•

For each of points 1, 2, 3, and 4 you must go through the IRAC process of identifying the issue, stating the relevant legal rules, and then applying those legal rules to the facts to reach a conclusion.

•

All of the relevant legal rules you need to rely on will be contained in the lectures or textbook. You can do further legal research if you want, but it is not essential.

•

The only area of law you should be considering for this problem question is contract law. Do not consider any legislation, do not consider the Building and Construction Security of Payment 1999. Do not consider any legal rules relating to “liquidated damages”. Do not consider any legal rules relating to negligence. Do not consider the Australian Consumer Law.

•

Your response should be a maximum of 1,000 words.

Instructions: Judges You are the judges deciding the legal dispute between Prime and Delta. You have had the opportunity to read the legal arguments of both the plaintiff and the defendant. It is your job to determine whether the plaintiff succeeded in their claim against the defendant or, alternatively, whether the defendant succeeded in defending the claim. You need to draft a judgment which address the following points: 1.

2.

3.

Plaintiff’s argument: 1.1

Provide a very short summary of the Plaintiff’s argument..

1.2

Identify the strengths of the Plaintiff’s argument (i.e. do you think the plaintiff’s argument was correct for a particular point).

1.3

Identify the weaknesses of the Plaintiff’s argument (i.e. do you think the plaintiff’s argument was incorrect for a particular point).

Defendant’s argument: 2.1

Provide a very short summary of the Defendant’s argument.

2.2

Identify the strengths of the Defendant’s argument (i.e. do you think the defendant’s argument was correct for a particular point).

2.3

Identify the weaknesses of the Defendant’s argument (i.e. do you think the defendant’s argument was incorrect for a particular point).

Decision: Come to a conclusion about which party is successful. In reaching your conclusion, answer the following questions: 3.1

Terms of the contract: What were the terms of the contract?

3.2

Essential terms: Was the obligation of Delta to pay Prime progressively a condition, intermediate term, or warranty of the contract?

3.3

Delay damages: Is Prime require to pay Delta delay damages?

3.4

Repudiation: (a)

Did Delta repudiate the contract?

(b)

Did Prime properly accept Delta’s repudiation and terminate the contract?

Further requirements: •

You are a neutral third party and should undertake your task objectively.

•

For point 3, you may find it helpful to apply the IRAC structure to determining which party has been successful. However, you are not required to apply the IRAC structure and you can draft your judgment as you see fit.

•

You can either write a single joint judgment with your partner (if so both students will receive the same mark) or write separate judgments which disagree with each other (if so each student will receive a separate mark).

•

Your response should be a maximum of 1,000 words.

Instructions: Commentators You are a manager of a construction company similar to Prime. You have been closely watching the legal proceedings between Prime and Delta and you think that your company should adjust its practices in order to avoid having a similar situation. You need to draft a memo to the CEO which addresses the following points: 1.

What specific actions and business practices of both the Prime and the Delta led to the Plaintiff having to bring legal proceedings against Delta?

2.

How can your business do things differently / what risk management practices can be adopted in order to avoid being involved in a similar legal dispute?

3.

How could the dispute between the Prime and Delta have been resolved differently and what would have been the advantages for the parties?

Further requirements: •

You can structure your response in whatever format you want (i.e. it does not have to be in the structure of the above questions), but it must address each of the above questions.

•

In addressing the above questions, you must consider the matter from both a legal and commercial perspective (see the note in the Wiki Instructions on the difference between a legal perspective and a commercial perspective).

•

Your memo should be a maximum of 800 words....