Ermogenous V Greek Orthodox Community Case

Introduction to Business Law

For creating a legal relationship, both the parties will first have to enter into the legal relationship/contract. The social contract is not considered actual or valid contracts because such contracts are not legally binding. The contract or agreement which are social in nature is not legally bindings. On the other hand, Domestic agreements are legally binding contracts. In domestic agreements, the terms & conditions are set by the people themselves (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). It means that the social and domestic agreement both are different from each other (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). The future decisions will get affected by the Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community case because it has to be identified whether the contract is a legally binding or not. If the contract is legally binding than it means that it will be enforceable by law. It is highly important to understand whether the agreement is legally binding or not because the decision of the case will depend on it. The court will analyze critically whether the agreement is of social nature or domestic nature. If the cases are going to be analyzed appropriately than the decisions of the court will be rational and according to the law (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015).

Question No.2 Analyzing the Statements

According to the first statement, the document that has presented in the court has no legal reliability in law. The document is considered as irrelevant & omitted by the court. In simple words, the document is rejected by the court due to its irrelevance in the law.  Meanwhile, in the second statement, the courts will not impeach or admit any case listed therein. It means that the cases which are going to listen in the court cannot be prosecuted by the court. In the first statement, the condition was on the document, and in the second statement, the condition is on the court (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015).

Question No. 3

Part (a)

Donald has the chance to mitigate its obligation. In the contract terms, Donald has to pay the full amount that is $2500. However, Donald has the opportunity to mitigate its obligation by paying $2000 (Marson & Ferris, 2015).

 Part (b)

Donald will not be sued if the corporation forgoes $500 and accepts the $2000. However, this is not the case here because through the scenario it seems like the company has just postponed the decision of suing Donald. As in the contract it is stated that Donald would have to pay $2500.

Part (c)

Here Ivanka is playing the role of the underwriter. However in the future, if the company wants to sue Donald, they will have to come after Ivanka first (Marson & Ferris, 2015).

Question No. 4 Advice Chelsea. (NB - ignore the issue of Intention)

According to contract law, two things must be done which include bargained for exchange & sufficient legal value.  The promise made by the bill has legal value because the bill has no legal duty to provide Ferrari as a gift. However, Chelsea had not done anything in return which means that the promise did not include bargained for exchange. In order to meet the criteria of bargained for exchange the item having value must be given as a return. Without bargained of exchange there will be no consideration. Therefore the promise will be considered as a gift. I will advise Chelsea to accept the used Mazda as a gift of birthday because the promise which is made by Bill is not enforceable by law and will be considered as a birthday gift. It would be enforceable by law if Chelsea would give something valuable to the bill in return (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015).

Question No. 5

a) Is Bob bound by the clause on the ticket?

It is quite evident that the Bob is bound by the clause of the ticket because on the reverse side of the ticket it is mentioned that the NRL parking company will not be responsible for any damage or loss occurred to the vehicle (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). Furthermore, the company advised its customers to leave their goods on their own risk. It means that Bob cannot claim the loss which occurs to his car because it is clearly mentioned on the back side of the ticket. The bob will able to claim damage if the company has stated that it would bear the loss on the back of the ticket. Hence there is no such policy of the company; the loss will be bearded by Bob himself. Many people get the ticket of the parking lot and consider that the parking management would take care of their car (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). It is necessary to read the whole ticket to know about the rules & regulations of the company. Many companies clearly state their policies, and it is up to the customers or individual to read those policies for their own good. Otherwise, the result would be as same as this case (Emerson, 2015).

b) Would your answer to (a) be different if Bob had been to Sydney Stadium on ten other occasions?

There will be no change in the answer because at some different occasion in Sydney Stadium Bob can receive a similar ticket with a similar situation. The answer would be different only when the management would take responsibility for the loss & it is written on the ticket. When it is stated on the ticket that the company is liable for any loss than it is clear that the other party will have to take care of its vehicle (Latimer, 2012). Bob cannot claim the loss which occurs to his car because it is clearly mentioned on the back side of the ticket. The bob will able to claim damage if the company has stated that it would bear the loss on the back of the ticket. (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015).

Question No. 6 Determine Whether a Statement Is a Representation or a Term

In determining whether the statement is a representation or a term the court considers four factors which are mentioned below in detail:

·         Importance of statement

·         The expertise of relative parties,

·         Parole evidence rule (Business, 2018).

·         Time

According to parole evidence rule, in the contract, the written terms are considered as terms whereas verbal statements are considered as representations.  If the represented has superior information than it would be considered as a term (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). If the representee have superior information than it would be a representation.  If representee specify the importance of statement to the represent than it will be considered as a term rather than representation. If it takes a huge amount of time in making a statement, then it means that it will be a representation rather than a term. In simple words, it can be said that the court mainly considers these factors so that it can distinguish between the term & representation. For the court, it is highly significant to know whether the statement provided is a term or representation (Marson & Ferris, 2015).to understand the difference between the representation & Contractual term “Dick Bentley Case” can be analyzed. In this case, the fundamental issue that arises was regarding the distinctions between mere representations and the terms of the contract. The judgment of the case identified the procedure through which it is determined whether the statement can become the team of the contract (EMMETT, 1967).

Question No. 7 Goods Act (1958) Vic, Advice David

David has purchased paper from the Super Paper product Company. On the time of purchase, David purchase the paper by saying that it needs the paper for wrapping gifts. However, the price of wrapping paper was higher than the ordinary wrapping paper but round about a good printing quality paper (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). If this case is analyzed in the light of Goods Act 1958, then it can be said that David did not have the right to reject the goods because the goods do not fail to perform the function according to the contract. At the time of purchase, David said that it needs paper for wrapping the goods which means that the paper can be used for wrapping goods (Austlii, 2019). David did not tell the seller that he wants to print on those paper as well. It means that the buyer performs the action which was not part of the initial contract. Therefore it is advised to David that the goods Act 1958 is not applicable in this case and David should utilize the paper only for wrapping instead of printing. The Goods Act 1958 becomes enforceable by law if David told the seller that it wants to print on the papers as well (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). If David wanted to print on the pages than it should tell the seller at the time of purchase so that seller would provide such paper on which printing becomes possible. It is clear that it is the mistake of David that it did not tell the seller at the time of purchase.

 References of Business Law

Austlii, 2019. GOODS ACT 1958. [Online]
Available at: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ga195876/

Beatty, J. F. & Samuelson, S. S., 2015. Cengage Advantage Books: Introduction to Business Law. s.l.:Cengage Learning.

Business, 2018. Legal essentials for business. [Online]
Available at: https://www.business.gov.au/planning/new-businesses/legal-essentials-for-business

Emerson, R. W., 2015. Business Law. s.l.:Barron's Educational Series.

EMMETT, A. R., 1967. REPRESENTATION OR CONTRACTUAL TERM?. SYDNEY LAW REVIEW, pp. 492-498.

Latimer, P., 2012. Australian Business Law. s.l.:CCH Australia Limited.

Marson, J. & Ferris, K., 2015. Business Law. s.l.:Oxford University Press.