Answer all 4 questions. HA2022 Business Law, Tri 3, 2011 1.Margaret owned an antique store that...

Question

Answer all 4 questions. HA2022 Business Law, Tri 3, 2011 1.Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When she opened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999 she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the point where she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one night at the kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep the business going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughter and aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she would receive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that she would give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds. Advise Emily. 2.Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into an arrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front- and backyards of the family property mowed, and he will ‘do a bit’ to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return, his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously used a garden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare property, and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richard’s father tells him that he can’t afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the work for nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property; besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging. Advise Richard. 3.Jenny received a circular from Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon advertising massages and manicures for $10. Realising that this was an exceptionally good deal, but not surprised because she knew that they had only just opened and were running a number of good opening specials, she rang and made a booking. When Jenny arrived at the salon she was told that there had been a mistake on the circular and it should have said $100. The manager of the salon explained that this was still a good price because normally a massage and manicure would have cost $150. Jenny was furious, as it had taken her 30 minutes to get to the shop by car and if she had known it would cost $100, she would never have made the booking. Advise Jenny. Would your advice have been any different if Jenny had the massage and manicure before being told that the cost was $100? Would she have to pay the full price? 4.Bruce, while he was so drunk that he didn’t know what he was doing, bid successfully at an auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Bruce didn’t know what he was doing. However, after Bruce sobered up he confirmed the contract with the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Bruce bound?

005_2xqm8zk-scjsjan0.pdf

Robert · Accepted Answer

Name of paper:
PAGE  
8
Business Law Assignment
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Business Law Assignment
Name
Institution
Q.1
In contract law, offer and acceptance form an analysis that seeks to determine whether an agreement that exists between two people is valid. The agreement includes an offer that is made by the offerer to the offeree, which depicts the willingness to enter into a contract. The contract must agree on certain terms, which indicate agreement without any further negotiations (Lanham et al., 2006).
In the matter, between Margaret made an offer to Emily that she would keep working until she retires and that Emily, the daughter would be allowed to work in the shop. Margaret made an offer to Emily that she would work in the shop and in return, she would receive any unsold dolls. However, when Margaret retires she decided that she would give the unsold dolls to charity.
Various considerations will be looked at to determine the validity of the case of Emily. It will apply the concept of consideration that tries to look at the legal value in contracts. It covers anything that is promised to the other when the contract is made. Consideration is mostly concerned on the bargain in the contract based on the exchange of a promise to deliver. However, the consideration must be include something valuable to the law. The promise given excludes the promises of affection, love, betting or gaming. Each party to the contract must mutually benefit and receive  detriment. The benefit or detriment will form the consideration. A one sided promise is not considered as a promise but as a gift. The law does not try to enforce gifts unless the gift is in a deed (Miller & Jentz, 2008).
In the above scenario, Margaret can claim that she offered a gift to Emily and not a promise as per the contract law or warrant the concept of consideration. It is a prerequisite that both of the parties offer some form of consideration before any contract can be deemed as being binding. In spite of that, even if the court did decide that there is no contract there is a possible recovery under the Promissory estoppel for Emily (Miller,  & Jentz, 2008).
The Promissory estoppel precludes a person from asserting or denying anything to the contract in the contemplation of law that has been established as the truth by the legislative officers or acts of the judicial officers. The Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR387) is another leading case in the Australian laws of contract. In this case, Waltons was estopped from refusing the contract  to avoid detriment from Waltons unconscionable behaviour. Promissory estoppel differs from the other forms of common law as it has lesser strict requirements and arises from promises made with  future intent. Estoppel is held as the promise made with intentions to create legal relations. In addition, knowledge on the matter by the person making the promise is worth considering on whether there was an intention it was going to be done by the person the promise was made to (Miller & Jentz, 2012).
The Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 reaffirmed the promissory estoppel in contract law. The High Tree House Limited case looks at the property owner who promises to receive half the rent payment due to the difficulty during the wartime. After the war, the property owner sues after the flats are fully occupied demanding for the outstanding arrears accumulated during the wartime. The court using the principle of promissory estoppels, held that that the property owner was not entitled to the arrears in the rent (Miller & Jentz, 2012).

Answer all 4 questions. HA2022 Business Law, Tri 3, XXXXXXXXXXMargaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When she opened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an...

Answer To: Answer all 4 questions. HA2022 Business Law, Tri 3, XXXXXXXXXXMargaret owned an antique store that...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment