Contract Law Assignment Discussion Board And Analysis
Task: which factors are considered by Australian contract law makers to help consider whether they require to be legally advised and have followed promises and terms and conditions which are conducted between two or more parties?
Contract law Assignment, considering Hayley’s rights to contract law as an anticipated offeree.
This contract law assignment, considers the legality and followed promises and terms and conditions which are conducted between two or more parties, who mutually agree to follow the regulations of the statements . Hence, a contract law is bounded under the law and failure of which can be subjected to legal sue from the plaintiff. In regards to the given case study, it is evident that Hayley and Jenny had been engaged in a constant communication on the sale of Jenny’s car, unless of the technical glitch and the miscommunication that grappled the flow of the communication between the seller and the buyer.
It has been evident in this contract law assignment research process that the Australian Contract law is primarily based on the English Contract law and is rather not being codified or made a part of the statute law. The basic principle of the Australian contract law is that it allows freedom of contract , which enables the parties to be at liberty and strike a bargain as and when they wish to, seeking other’s consent(ACCC v Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 992 (28 June 2019) . Considering the case scenario, it needs to be stated that signing a contract between two parties, accrues to the aspects of taking individual responsibility to abide by the prerogatives and refrain from performing something, which does not invite any sort of issues .
Hence, under the prerogatives of the Australian Contract law, it needs to be stated that legally constructed partnerships, considerations, obedience and statutory formalities need to be acknowledged . Therefore, an enforceable contract under the Australian law, accounts to the aspects of arranging an acceptance of the formalities, which the contractual parties possesses to support the statutory capability in the contract. Although the contract law assignment case does not have a proper contract between Hayley and Jenny, but the terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon by the two parties account to the presence of an implied contract . Under the Australian contract law, the implied contract must be reasonable and equitable and must focus on giving efficacy to the contract, in terms of stating something, which may not be directly stated, but is tacit in nature and implied . In regards to the given case study, it needs to be stated that the terms and conditions , in regards to the given study, accounts to the aspects of abstaining from all sorts of contradictory expressions, which are bounded within the contractual terms and conditions(ACCC v Telstra Corporation Limited  FCA 502
 FCA 502 (13 May 2021) . Therefore, this contract law assignment confirms thatapplication of the rules in an implied contract, it needs to be stated that both Hayley and Jenny does not have any proper contract, but did engage in communication through emails. For instance, it is evident that in the Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, it is observed that the formation of the contract did not trouble the subjective intent of the contractual parties and that the contract between Smith and Hughes was implied in regards to the buying of the old oats . Hence, the same perspective can be applicable for the given case study, wherein the offer can be terminated, based on the multiple aspects of rejection, miscarriage of approvals and failure of the conditions identified on this Australian contract law assignment.
Further, the case study depicts the concept of acceptance, which can be designated as an unambiguous statement, wherein the performance of the offeree is considered . Hence, under the prerogatives rules plotted on this contract law assignment, the regulation of the implied contract shall include a contract, which initiates with the communication of the acceptance .
Analysing the given case study, it needs to be stated that there has not been any contract between Jenny and Hayley and the terms and conditions, as agreed upon by the two parties are simply implied upon. Since, there is no mutual written agreement between the two parties, it needs to be stated that the aspects of implication is applied in the given case study . Considering the given terms and conditions, the transaction between Hayley and Jenny cannot be termed as a proper business. However, considering the aspects of the implied contract between Jenny and Hayley, it needs to be stated that no term of the contract shall be considered as effective, in case the business efficacy is missing.
Thus, this contract law assignment can ascertainthat Jenny is responsible to share the details of the car selling decision with Hayley, who is the potential buyer and Hayley shall be responsible for contracting with her to carry on with the contract . Furthermore, it is quite obvious that in regards to admonishing of the contractual terms and conditions, it can be stated that the innocent party, which is Hayley is entitled to terminate the contract and claim the damages from Jenny, wherein she is liable to get the return of $4000.
The Australian contract law assignment concludes that it needs to be stated that the two parties in the given case study are Hayley and Jenny, who share details of the car selling prerogatives, wherein Hayley is considered to be the potential offeree. It needs to be stated that the communication between Hayley and Jenny are not written in a legal form, but is implied. A breach in the terms and conditions of the implied contract would make Hayley eligible to seek compensation and claim replenishment for the damages. Hence, Hayley is liable to pay for the damages.
The issue of the case study indicates the potential of contract breaches under the Australian Consumer Law and provide suggestions to Bill Jobs and the dissatisfied purchasers.
In regards to the given case study, it needs to be stated that the specific elements of misconduct in legal contracts, are prevalent on this contract law assignment. Under the Australian consumer law, accounts to the varied representations, which are made to the consumers, who make the product packaging and distribution? These representations account to the identification of the warranty for repairing and replacement of defective products, which are limited within the year contractual prerogatives . In consideration to the given study, it needs to be stated that the focus of the current scenario is based on the regulations of the section 18 and section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (2006 Formula 1 Foster's Australian Grand Prix) .
According to the prerogatives of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the focus is laid on promoting fair trading and regulates the national regulations on consumerism and Australian legal perspectives . Under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, it is obvious that prohibition is imposed upon the person, who engages in conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive and cheat . Under section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, it needs to be stated that there is abstinence from making a range of specific false or misleading representations about the goods and services, in regards to the supply and timely distribution of the goods and services .
In regards to the breach of section 18 of Australian Consumer Law, it needs to be stated that any person in Australia is not allowed or encouraged to trade in commerce and business operations which engages in misleading aspects of the contract, which is likely to deceive the customer(ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd) . Further, section 29 of the Australian Consumer law, it needs to be stated that there shall be abstinence from any sort of false and misleading representations , which may indicate towards the identification of the falsely represented goods that do not belong to a particular standards ,quality , grade and valuation of the regulations . Hence, this Australian contract law assignmentfocuses on the evaluations which shall be tooanalysed whether Winpple engages in fair trading and consumerism and is using a misleading approach to deal with the process of packaging and maintaining the quality of the services.
Taking into account the two sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, it needs to be stated that the given case study accounts to the application of both the laws, which are eligible for detailing the quality, distribution and packaging of the products . In consideration to the given case study, it needs to be stated thatWimple HiPad is manufactured in Australia, but the promotion of the products has been done, keeping in mind the American customers and the American background.
Despite of being advised by one of his associates, Bill Jones is expected to face legal implications, due to the packaging and distribution of the products, by Winpple. The potential purchasers also raised questions in regards to the quality of the tablets, along with liability for breaches of the contract relating to product suitability . Therefore, in the given case study, it is obvious that Bill Jones has been unable to sell the product, as advertised and promoted , in regards to the applications of the legal aspects and ensure that the need to comply with sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Therefore, it is obvious on this Australian contract law assignmentthat Bill Jones has been engaged in misleading conduct and breach of contract, which indicates towards paying a penalty of $160,000 as compensation for breach of contract under the Australian Consumer Law and sections 18 and 29, of the same (ACCC v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 1456) . Further, the implications of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL), it needs to be stated that breach of section 18 alone will not lead to any sort of pecuniary compensation, and seeks to include section 29, as well . Looking at the prerogatives, it is obvious that Bill Jones had been engaged in breach of both sections 18 and section 29 under the Australian Consumer Law.
Concluding this contract law assignment case scenario, it is evident that Bill Jones, the manufacturer for HiPad has been conducted, following a non-compliance with section 18 and section 29 of the Australian Consumer law, in regards to the packaging, promotion and distribution of the products. Therefore, Winpple failed to comply with the regulations of the key sections of 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law and is liable to pay off a compensation amount, as decided by the Federal court. However, both the sections need to be implied upon to ensure compensation for the damages.
Anderson, E. and Monjardino, M., 2019. Contract design in agriculture supply chains with random yield. European Journal of Operational Research, 277(3), pp.1072-1082.
Andrews, D. and Hansell, D., 2021. Productivity Enhancing Labour Reallocation in Australia. Economic Record. Bant, E. and Paterson, J.M., 2019. Exploring the boundaries of compensation for misleading conduct: The role of restitution under the Australian consumer law. Sydney L. Rev., 41, p.155.
Casado, R. and Caspersz, D., 2016. From ‘opportunity’to ‘insecurity’: the psychological contract of highly skilled immigrants in Western Australia. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 26(3), pp.190-202. Childe, V.G., 2016. How labour governs: a study of workers' representation in Australia. Melbourne Univ. Publishing. Corones, S. and Clarke, P., 2015. Australian consumer law: Commentary and materials. Thomson Reuters (Professional). Dellios, A., 2016. Displaced persons, family separation and the work contract in postwar Australia. Journal of Australian Studies, 40(4), pp.418-432.
Gray, A., 2015. Good faith in Australian contract law after Barker. Australian Business Law Review, 43(5), pp.358-378.
Griffiths, J., 2015. Application of the Australian consumer law to government commercial activities. Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, 29(3), pp.3-15.
Howells, G. and Ramsay, I. eds., 2018. Handbook of research on international consumer law. Edward Elgar Publishing. Hunt, C.D., 2015. Good Faith Performance in Canadian Contract Law. The Cambridge Law Journal, 74(1),Australian contract law assignment pp.4-7.
Hunt, K.M., 2015. Gaming the system: Fake online reviews v. consumer law. Computer law & security review, 31(1), pp.3-25. Lacey, J., Edwards, P. and Lamont, J., 2016. Social licence as social contract: procedural fairness and forest agreement-making in Australia. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 89(5), pp.489-499.
Levitt, R.E. and Eriksson, K., 2016. Developing a governance model for PPP infrastructure service delivery based on lessons from Eastern Australia. Journal of Organization Design, 5(1), pp.1-8.
Lewins, K., 2015. Cruise Ship Operators, Their Passengers, Australian Consumer Law and State Civil Liability Acts-Part 1. Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ, 29, p.93.
Lewins, K., 2016. Cruise Ship Operators, Their Passengers, Australian Consumer Law and Civil Liability Acts: Part Two. Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ, 30, p.12.
North, J. and Flitcroft, R., 2016. Businesses beware When does the Australian Consumer Law apply. Governance Directions, 68(5), pp.306-309.
O’Rourke, A. and Antioch, S.K., 2016. Workplace bullying laws in Australia: Placebo or panacea. Common Law World Review, 45(1), pp.3-26.
Parker, L., Karliychuk, T., Gillies, D., Mintzes, B., Raven, M. and Grundy, Q., 2017. A health app developer’s guide to law and policy: a multi-sector policy analysis. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 17(1), pp.1-13.
Scollo, M., Lindorff, K., Coomber, K., Bayly, M. and Wakefield, M., 2015. Standardised packaging and new enlarged graphic health warnings for tobacco products in Australia—legislative requirements and implementation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the Competition and Consumer (Tobacco) Information Standard, 2011. Tobacco control, 24(Suppl 2), pp.ii9-ii16.
Stevens, C., 2019. Temporary work, permanent visas and circular dreams: Temporal disjunctures and precarity among Chinese migrants to Australia. Current Sociology, 67(2), pp.294-314.
Stewart, T., 2015. Unreasonable, Unconscionable and Oppressive Contract Terms in South African and Western Australian Consumer Law. University of Johannesburg (South Africa).
Thornthwaite, L., 2016. Chilling times: social media policies, labour law and employment relations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, contract law assignment54(3), pp.332-351.