Steve Legal Obligation to Buy Car from Jason-Samples for Students

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 To determine the validity of agreement signed between Tom and Susan. Rules The contract being an official agreement can be either written or oral. A contract in order to be valid needs to have specifically six elements: Offer: An offer or a promise is important as if there is no offer made by one party to another there will be no contract. Acceptance: After receiving an offer from one party there should be an acceptance by another. Further, no contract shall be concluded if the parties are still into negotiations or discussing not having accepted the offer (Koffman Macdonald, 2010). Intention to create a legal relation: As per Contract Act, it is important to intent to create legal relations as one of the key requirement as a valid contract. In case of no intention to create legal relations, the contract can be subject to a lawsuit. Consideration: Consideration in a contract is meaning the exchange set between the promisor and promises to make the contract legally valid (Chen-Wishart, 2012). Capacity: the contract must be in a legal capacity to do so i.e., the parties involved in a contract must be major. Certainty: the terms and regulations made in the contract must be certain Expressly not declared void to make it enforceable or considered valid. Applicability of rules As in the current case of Tom and Susan, the elements stated to make a contract valid are all fulfilled. Tom makes a written offer to Susan to which she gives her acceptance. The consideration of $100,000 and legal intent as well as the capacity of parties makes the contract legally valid one. Conclusion Herein, the contract entered between Tom and Susan is a valid agreement as both parties legal intentions were clear and mutual consent was assured through the signature of both. Therefore, Tom approach to pay Susan only $100,000 is valid. 2.Issue Steve legal obligation to buy car from Jason Rules Offer and invitation to offer infers two different implications and thus should not be considered equal. Though, an offer is a personal expression on showing its willingness to another party to do or not to do anything. Offer is a proposal, which is definite, complete and certain in all cases (McKendrick, 2014). Offer requires being communicated to another person and legally binding on parties. While Invitation to offer (treat) is an act to invite the other party to make a proposal. It is prior to an offer. In the event of invitation to offer, there is no negotiation of terms of the contract or a clear expression to make an offer. Applicability of rule Herein, this case Steve act was to induce Jason to make an invitation to offer with intent to negotiate and create a contract. But nonetheless, Steve does not make any offer to make it legally binding on him to accept Jason car. Conclusion Therefore, in this respective case, Jason does not have any right to make Steve legally bound to buy his modified car as he makes an invitation to offer rather than offer that make it fundamentally not legally binding on Steve to make the purchase. 3.Issue In this case, the issue is to identify whether Harry holds defence to Carl negligence act. Rule According to Civil Liability Act in case of any loss due to negligence act on another as stated in act of Perre v Apand Pty Limited (1999) the following conditions shall be applied: The duty of Care: the defendant has a responsibility towards the plaintiff recognized by law. The famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson formed the modern law of negligence which lays its foundation on duty of care and fault principles. There an existence of legally recognized responsibility of obligation or duty (Schwartz Rowe, 2010). Breach of Duty: the defendant who intentionally exposes the plaintiff to the considerable risk of loss, breaches the duty. Intention and/or Malice: furthermore establishing conditions of intent or malice which applies in the event of gross negligence. Causation: Accordingly the result of negligent act or omission it is important that injury is led by negligence. As in case of Volenti non-fit injuria is which is a legal doctrine that states if someone willingly involves into a required position acknowledging that it could lead to harm will not be able to claim against the defendant (Kritchevsky, 2010). Injury: Though there is a breach of duty, plaintiff may yet not recover unless it has proven defendants breach instigated a pecuniary injury. Damage: It is a monetary value of the harm done to the plaintiff. Applicability of rule Herein this case Carl has conducted a breach of duty and duty of care leading to health injury and damage to Harry. Carl having no primary knowledge to cook sashimi could have avoided the misconduct resulting in health illness to Harry. There was an act of negligence on part of Carl. Conclusion Though Carl has to lead to the negligence conduct but nevertheless as per Volenti non fit injuria doctrine of law Harry could have evaded the negligent conduct made by Carl as he knew Carl had no knowledge to cook sashimi 4.Issue Rights of Betty as per Australian Consumer Law Rule According to the ACL, all usual rights are applicable when anyone shops with an Australian online business (Ramsay, 2012). In case of any misleading conduct on the part of the online site, the consumer has the right to repair, replace or refund, compensation for damage and loss and warranties. It is important that online website competes on fairgrounds on basis of price and quality. Applicability of rule Betty has the right under ACL to claim for damages against the Apple online website which serves information which is misleading serving product products with the false specification. Conclusion Here in this case, Betty can claim against the online website for her rights as per ACL, as a product so received by Betty is not in tune with the specification so stated by the website. References Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford University Press. Koffman, L., Macdonald, E. (2010).The law of contract. Oxford University Press. Kritchevsky, B. (2010). Tort Law Is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence-Per-Se Litigation. Am. UL Rev., 60, 71. McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Ramsay, I. (2012).Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer markets. Bloomsbury Publishing. Schwartz, V. E., Rowe, E. F. (2010). Comparative negligence. LexisNexis.