Validation of Agreement-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Questions: 1.Advise if the agreement signed by Susan was valid. 2.Advise if Steve was legally bound to buy the car from Jason. 3.Advise if Carl was negligent and whether any defence was available to him. 4.Advise if Betty has any rights under ACL. Answers: 1.Issue: The primary issue of this case is to determine whether the agreement that has been signed by Susan is valid or not. In the present case, it has been noticed that husband of Susan had handed over the alleged agreement to her where it has been stated that if at any time the matrimonial tie between both of them has been dissolved, Susan could get hardly $100.000 and she will not claim more than that. It has further stated by him that if she will not agreed to sign the same, he will not going to marry her. Rules: It is clear from the facts of the case that the provision of duress will be suitable to resolve the dispute[1]. The term has been included in the Contract law and it has been mentioned in the provision that if any act attracts duress, it will cease the enforceability of contractual liabilities. This provision is used as a weapon to defend himself who was forced to convey their consent over an agreement the terms of which go against the interest of him. It has been mentioned under the essentials of contract law that both the party to a contract should have to enter into the contract with free consent. However, if certain situations cropped up where one of party threatened the other to obtain consent regarding the agreement and that party forced to give his consent by putting signature, that will attract the provision of duress. In Australia, section 50 of the Contract law envisages the provision of duress. The rule regarding the same is that the consenting party will get an opportunit y to terminate the contract[2]. the rule regarding the same has been applied in the case of Barton V Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27 where the Court has decided to deliver their judgment on behalf of the consenting party and told to cancel the terms of the contract. Application: It is clear from the case that Susan, who gave consent over the agreement, forced by her husband Tom and it is clear that she had no intention to deliver her free consent over the contracted issue. These stipulations attract the provision of Duress. Conclusion: The case can be concluded with the fact that Susan will get the opportunity to rescind the contract on the ground of duress. 2.Issue: The pivotal issue regarding the case is to consider the issue whether Steve is liable to meet his promise to buy the car that has been made to Jason or not. The main theme of the case evolved with the topic regarding the promise made by Steve to Jason regarding a car that has been inspected by Steve for several times. It has been seen in the case that Steve demanded certain things in respect to the car and told Jason that he will buy the car if all his requirements are fulfilled. After knowing the fact, Jason had modified the car, installed all the features to the car, and met all the requirements respectively. However, it has been observed that Steve on later stage denied to buy the car. Rules: The subject matter of the case has drawn the arena of promissory estoppels and it is a part of the contracted provision. It has been mentioned under the Contract Act that if a promise has been made regarding something and the other party relies on the same to that extent the termination of the promise may affected his interest, law binds the promise maker to keep the promise[3]. The terms of the promissory estoppels consist of certain rules regarding the obligation of the party regarding the promise and it has been stated that the party should meet all the promise mandatorily[4]. The term promissory estoppels consists of the general rule and ethical issues regarding the commencement of a contract that enhance the hand of the law so that it can forced the promise maker to keep the promise. It has been stated that the grounds of the promise should have to be legal in nature[5]. In Crabb v Arun D.C. (1976) 1 Ch 179[6] it was held that the promise maker has to perform as per his statemen t. Application: In this present case, Steve expressed his view regarding the buying of car and made a promise to Jason that if all his requirements are fulfilled, he will buy the car. Therefore, he made a promise to Jason. It is clear from the fact that Steve had made a promise and that binds him to perform the same. Conclusion: Therefore, it can be concluded that Steve is legally bound to purchase the car from Jason. 3.Issue: The primary issues regarding the third question is whether Carl has any responsibility under the acts of negligence and is there any scope to defend himself here or not. Rules: It is clear from the facts of the case that the subject matter of the case has been attracted the provision of the act of negligence[7]. The term negligence is a provision under the chapter of Tort. It has been mentioned under the section of negligence that if a person failed to perform his duty of care, he will get liable for the offence of negligence. It has also been mentioned under the rule that the negligent work should have to cause great monetary loss to the other party. the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is one of the historical judgment in the history of negligence and it has been noticed that the manufacture is personally liable for the negligent acts[8]. It can be stated that the act of negligence is malafide in nature and it causes great injustice to the person who are harmed. However, the person can get certain defence provision to submit on his behalf and can prove his innocence. The rule regarding contributory negligence and assumption of risk can be such defence to him. If it has been proved that the victim knew that risk can be taken place out of the act of the defendant, he will also be held liable for the accident. Application: It is noticed in this case that the defendant Carl was an angler and a chef and his friend Harry used to have the food made by Carl. Carl was not a professional chef and both of them knew the fact. After knowing the fact, the plaintiff Harry continued to eat the foods made by Carl. It is clear from the facts of the case that Harry became ill by consuming the foods made by Carl and it was found that Carl did not know the process of preparing the fish and he even did not wash the fish well. Thus, it can be stated that Carl is liable under the principle of negligence. However, it is also a fact that Harry knew the fact that Carl is not a professional chef and there can be risk regarding the foods made by him. In spite of the fact, he took the food and fell ill. Therefore, Harry can be liable for the acts of contributory negligence. Conclusion: Therefore, the provisions regarding the contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk can be taken by Carl to defend him. 4.Issue: The issue of the case is to determine the fact whether Betty can get any right under the Australian Consumer Law or not. Rules: The issue of the case is to determine the outcome of the misleading advertisement and statutory provisions regarding the same that are applied in this case. The provision regarding the misleading advertisement has been mentioned under the provision of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Act. It is written under the section that if products have been advertised with certain features and the delivery of it holds different features, the consumer can sue the product under the ground of misleading advertisement[9]. The Consumer law also imposed certain statutory duties on the same and section 56 of the Australian Consumer law deals with the same. If the goods has not been delivered as per the proposed feature, and there are sufficient grounds for the consumers to reject the same, the goods can be replaced by the respective authority[10]. The policy regarding the R3 (Repair, Replace and Refund) will be applicable in this case. Application: It has been noticed that Betty has regimented for an Apple I-phone that has 5x zoom and has good battery superiority. However, the phone that she got had certain inconsistency as the camera was 3x and the battery support was also not that good. Therefore, it can be said that both the provisions of section 18 and 56 will be applicable in this case. Conclusion: Therefore, it can be held that Betty can get aid under section 18 and 56 of the Australian Consumer Law. References: Faerber, A.E. and Kreling, D.H., 2014. Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of general internal medicine, 29(1), pp.110-118. Feldman, S.W., 2015. Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Freedom of Contract, and the Economic Duress Defense: A Critique of Three Commentaries. Clev. St. L. Rev., 64, p.37. Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Kim, N.S., 2014. Situational Duress and the Aberrance of Electronic Contracts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 89, p.265. Lee, R., 2015. Promissory Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel: A Response to the Myth of a Unifying Approach. King's Student L. Rev., 6, p.iii. Mungan, M.C. and Seidenfeld, M., 2016. Investments to Make Threats Credible, Rent-Seeking, and Duress. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), pp.341-351. Price, W.N., 2013. Legal implications of an ethical duty to search for genetic incidental findings. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(2), pp.48-49. Richards, J., 2013. Deceptive advertising: Behavioral study of a legal concept. Routledge. Robertson, A., 2014. Three Models of Promissory Estoppel. Browser Download This Paper. Tamblyn, N., 2017. The Law of Duress and Necessity: Crime, Tort, Contract. Routledge. Faerber, A.E. and Kreling, D.H., 2014. Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of general internal medicine, 29(1), pp.110-118. Feldman, S.W., 2015. Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Freedom of Contract, and the Economic Duress Defense: A Critique of Three Commentaries. Clev. St. L. Rev., 64, p.37. Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Kim, N.S., 2014. Situational Duress and the Aberrance of Electronic Contracts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 89, p.265. Mungan, M.C. and Seidenfeld, M., 2016. Investments to Make Threats Credible, Rent-Seeking, and Duress. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1),pp.341-351. Richards, J., 2013. Deceptive advertising: Behavioral study of a legal concept. Routledge. Lee, R., 2015. Promissory Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel: A Response to the Myth of a Unifying Approach. King's Student L. Rev., 6, p.iii. Price, W.N., 2013. Legal implications of an ethical duty to search for genetic incidental findings. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(2), pp.48-49. Tamblyn, N., 2017. The Law of Duress and Necessity: Crime, Tort, Contract. Routledge Robertson, A., 2014. Three Models of Promissory Estoppel. Browser Download This Paper.