Issue and rule of common law in Ronald’s case

The main issue of the case is to determine whether Ronald has claimed his rights against Paula under the common law of contract or not.

The min subject matter of the case is based on certain principle of the contract law. Contract is a legal agreement where certain terms and conditions are included and the parties are bind by the terms. According to the general rules of contract, if a party has entered into a contract by misrepresenting any facts and obtaining the signature of the other party; the affected party can bring an action against the alleged party. Further, the verbal statements have certain importance where the validity of the written agreement based on those statements. This principle has been established in De Lasalle v Guildford. This rule is known parole evidence rule. It has further been made in the Van Den Esschert v Chappell that an oral agreement is also form part of a written agreement in case the main intention of the contract has been laid in the oral agreement and the same has not been mentioned in the written contract. In Oscar Chess v William [1957] 1 WLR 370, it has been mentioned by the court that when in a contract, a representee has made false statement regarding a thing and the buyer has bought the thing innocently, the statement of the representee will be known as representation. In case of any false statement, the affected party can make action for false statements. Apart from this, where the terms of the contract are unfair and any party take undue advantage from the contract, the nature of the contract will be suffer from unconscionableness and the affected party can the contract.

In this present case, it has been observed that Ronald buys antique things but has no knowledge regarding the verification of the real antique piece. He had seen a desk in the shop of Paula and stated that he will buy the desk if it was 120 years old. Paula had assured him that the age of the desk is more than 120 years and as Ronald could not verify the reality of the statements, he had bought the desk on the statement made by Paula. A contract has been entered in between them where all these verbal implications had not been mentioned. In the later stage, it has been observed that the desk was not 120 years old and Ronald has to suffer huge loss. According to the parole evidence rule, it can be stated that Paula is liable to maintain all the essentiality of the verbal agreements and in case of any failure, she has to compensate Ronald. In addition, it can be stated that Ronald has been victimised under the misrepresentation.

Application of common law in Ronald’s case

Conclusion:

It is therefore advised to Ronald that he can claim compensation from Paula and challenge the validity of the contract.

The main issue of the case is to determine whether Ronald has any rights against Paula under Australian Consumer Law or not.

In case of sales of goods, the rights and interest of the buyer and the seller are secured by the Australian Consumer law. The main intention of the Act is to secure the common interest of the buyer and certain provisions have been mentioned in this Act that intends to maintain equality among the buyer and seller. According to section 18 of the Act, the seller is restrained to involve in any misconduct and should not take a part in any deceptive behaviour. In case, the acts of the seller are falling under this category, the nature of the contract will be unconscionable and will be void. According to section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law, if the buyer has any special disadvantage regarding any goods and the seller is aware of the weakness of the buyer and he takes undue advantage from the weakness, the contract will make between the parties will be void. According to Australia Competition and Consumer Law, when a party buys certain things that cost less than $40000 or any goods for their personal or domestic use, he becomes the consumer and in case his rights and interest becomes hampering, Australia Competition and Consumer Law will be applied on them to provide them protection. Further, according to section 54 of the Act, the quality of the goods should be acceptable in nature and in case of any contradiction, the affected party can claim for compensation and the alleged party or the seller should have to compensate the buyer.

In this case, Ronald had mentioned that he has no idea about the reality of the antique goods and he could not identify them. Therefore, he will be depended on the assurance of Paula. Therefore, the seller had the knowledge that buyer has certain weak points. In spite of that, Paula had stated certain wrong facts regarding the age of the desk and sold the goods to him. After the completion of sale, it has been noticed by Ronald that certain new parts have been included in the desk that clarify the fact that Paula has given wrong statements to him. Further, the desk had been bought by Ronald at $25000, which becomes $1000 when the desk has been verified by valuer. Therefore, it can be stated that Ronald is a consumer under the law of Australia and the seller had done deceptive conduct to sale the desk to him. Further, the condition of the desk was not acceptable in nature, as Ronald wants 120 years old desk and in reality, the desk was not that antique.

Conclusion for Ronald’s case

Conclusion:

It can therefore be advised to Ronald that he can claim compensation from Paula under section 18, section 54 of the Australia Competition and Consumer Law. Further, evidences can be produced under section 20 of the Act.

The main issue of the case is to determine whether Natalia can sue Marion under the Contract law or not.

The present subject matter of the case is based on certain landmark judgments of the contract law. According to the general principle of contract law, no legal obligations could be established in case of domestic agreement. This principle has been established in the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571. According to this case, where certain promises have been made by the person of close relation, it does not create any legal obligation. However, this rule has been rebutted in the case of Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6 where it has been observed that legal obligation can be made in between the person with close relation. In this case, the court has focussed on the intention to create legal obligation and according to the court, if the parties are willing to create legal relations in between them, the contractual terms will be binding in nature. Further, it has been mentioned in Wakeling v Ripley (1951) that where certain promises have been made to create legal obligations between the parties, any of the parties could not take the plea of domestic nature of the promise afterwards and the person who made the promise will be compelled to fulfil the promise. Therefore, it can be stated that the legal obligation can be made in between the persons with close relation if there is any intention to create legal relationship by the parties. In addition to this, there is certain equattable principle of law that will be applicable in this case. Considering the issues and facts of the case, the provisions of the promissory estoppels will be applied in this case. According to the promissory estoppels, if any person makes any promise to other person and that other person has relied on the facts of the promise in such way so that he will face loss if the promise maker could not fulfil the terms of the promise. This principle has been established for the first time in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877]. It has been mentioned in that case that the promise maker could not withdraw the contents of his promise once the other person relied on the terms of the promise. The nature of the promise should be unequivocal. Further, in Waltons Stores v Maher Marion, it has been held that the promise maker is obliged to maintain all the contention of the promise.

In this case, it has been observed that Marion and Natalia is cousin and they are closely related to each other. However, according to the case, it has been observed that Marion had promised to Natalia that she will transfer 50% of her business to Natalia if Natalia worked for her for 2years and Natalia had left everything in Perth to join Marion in Melbourne. Marion denied transferring the share and pleading that it was a domestic agreement and therefore, not binding by law. Considering the facts of Merritt’s case, Marion is liable to fulfil the promise. Further, Marion will be stopped to non-perform her promise.

Conclusion:

Natalia can sue Marion under contract law.

References:

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

De Lasalle v Guildford [1901] 2 KB 215

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] LR 2 App 439

Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6

Oscar Chess v William [1957] 1 WLR 370

Van Den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR114

Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183

Waltons Stores v Maher [1988] HCA 7