Contract Law and Hiring of Marco

The issue that exists in this given scenario is whether Fran is entitled to hire Jane in place of Marco

It can be stated that for a contract to be considered valid and legally binding, the intention to create legal relations is of significant importance. In general the intention to create legal relations is implied by the consideration which is promised by the promisor for the fulfillment of the promise to the promisee. However the intention to create legal relation separately acts as an important element for the formation of a valid contract. As held in the case Australian Woollen Mills Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth  an objective test is required to be applied by the courts to assess the intention of the parties. Previously, the courts used to assume that the parties did not intend to be legally bund especially in domestic or family agreements Jones v Padavatton. However this approach of the court s was changed in the notable case Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. It has been held in this case that the presumptions are not to be taken into consideration while assessing the legal intention of the parties.

In this given scenario, it is evident that the Marco had been hired by Fran as his assistant. Marco is the brother of Fran; however Marco intended to be legally bound by the contract terms. This can be substantiated by the agreement signed between the parties. Thus in accordance with the principle of the case Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA the courts will not assume any presumptions and therefore will consider Fran to have breached the contract terms if she hires Jane in place of Marco.

Conclusion

Thus, in conclusion it can be said that Fran cannot avoid the contract that had been formed her and Marco

The issue that exists in this given scenario is whether Octavia can rely on the provision of Doctrine of estoppels.

This doctrine was first proposed in the case Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway

Promissory estoppels has been defined as clause which prevents a person to use his legal right on another person, if the former person has promised not t enforce his rights and the latter has relied on such right and acted accordingly. To establish promissory estoppels as a ground of defense the claimant must prove the following:

• There was a pre existing contractual relation between the parties as held in the case Combe v Combe
• The promise was clear and unambiguous as held in the case Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd.
• Change of Position as held in the case Alan v El Nasr
• It was inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise as held in the case D & C Builders v Rees

It has provided clearly in the given scenario that no contractual relationship existed between the parties in consideration. Fran had not signed the contractual agreement with Octavia. She had said that she would go through the papers of the lease first and then sign it, however before signing the document the fan had been installed. Therefore by the application of the principle as held in the Combe v Combe case. Therefore although Octavia acted and relied on her promise she will not be entitled to the cost incurred by her for installing the fan.

Promissory Estoppel and Octavia’s Warehouse Space

Conclusion:

Therefore in conclusion, it can be said that Octavia cannot rely on the doctrine of promissory esoppel. 

In this given scenario the issue that can be identified is whether Dante can be restricted to work independently by the application of the Restraint of Trade cause.

In the case Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin  the definition of the clause of restrain of trade had been provided. It had been stated by Lord Diplock that restraint of trade is a clause which aims to restrict the right of either of the parties to the contract upon his consent to engage in trading with third parties outside the contract in a manner proposed by the contraventee.  However, in Australia the scope of the restraint of rade clause has been significantly reduced by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).  Restraint of trade clauses cannot conflict with the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).  Reasonableness is a key element of the restraint of Trade clauses. An agreement or contract which contains a restraint of trade clause would be considered to be void except in case such clause aims to protect the interest of the parties and the interest of the public as held in the case Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd . For the purpose of assessing whether the time period for which the restraint of trade clause would be valid, the courts generally take into consideration the time when the restraint of trade clause had been imposed instead on the time when such clause was sought or challenged. In the case Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing v Vancouver Breweries it was held that a mere protection against competition cannot be considered to be a legitimate interest.

In this given scenario it has been clearly provided that the contract of employment of Dante contained the restraint of trade clause which prevented him from opening a business or supplying the clients of Fran separately for a period of one year after the apprenticeship. This clause can be held to be unreasonable as it aims to provide protection against competition to Fran according to the Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing v Vancouver Breweries case.  Thus after analyzing the facts f the case and applying the legal provisions to the same, it can be stated that Fran cannot enforce the restraint of trade contract on Dante as it is unreasonable.

Conclusion

Thus to conclude, it can be said that Fran cannot enforce the restraint of trade clause on Dante.  

In this given case study the issue that can be identified is whether Arjun can get free supply of chocolates for a month for recommending an assistant to Fran.

The principle of a unilateral offer is applicable inn this scenario. The case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  is one in which the principle of unilateral offer had been first illustrated. In this case it had been held by the court that the offer involved was a unilateral offer. It was held that Mrs Carlil had accepted such offer and performed the terms of the offer. Therefore the Carbolic Smokeball company was bound to pay her the reward as mentioned in the advertisement.

Thus by the assessing the facts as provided in the given scenario, it can be stated that Fran had put up advertisement on the window of her shop. It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that any person who recommends an assistant for Fran’s business would be entitled to receive free supply of chocolates for one month. Arjun had clearly acted as per the terms of advertisement. He had recommended his neighbor as the assistant. Therefore by the application of the Carllil V Carbolic Smoke ball case it can be said that Arjun performed the terms of terms of the advertisement and therefore is entitled to receive the reward. 

Conclusion

 Thus to conclude, it can be said that Arjun is entitled to receive free supply of chocolates for one month.