Contract Act in Australia-Free-Samples-Myassignementhelp.com

Questions: 1.Advise if Craig is able to sue the Council for damages. 2.Advise if Craigs company needs to pay the architectural fee. 3.Advise if Craig could recover the rest of the loan and interest from Steven. 4.Advise if Craig is able to sue Federating Square for breach of contract. Answers: 1.Issue The core issue is to determine if there has been negligence on the part of the council and if Craig can recover the damages from the council. The various elements of the tort of negligence need to be considered on the basis of conduct of council staff. Rule For establishing the tort of negligence, the following three elements need to be present. Duty to Care The defendant must have a duty to care towards the plaintiff. This can be tested through the neighbour test as outlined in the Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 580 case. The neighbour is an entity which in the belief of the action doer can be impacted by the choices exhibited in relation to the inaction or action undertaken (Davenport Parker, 2014). Also, the impact should be foreseeably seen for the duty to care to arise. Breach of Duty It is essential that the defendant must take adequate measures so as to extend the necessary care to the neighbour or the potential plaintiff. The reasonable care would be dependent on the underlying circumstances in relation to the likelihood of damage and severity of the underlying damage. Failure to take reasonable measures which would be expected from a person of average intellect would lead to breach of duty (Lindgren, 2011). Damages The plaintiff must suffer damages on account of breach of duty. These are not limited to physical and monetary and may be as emotional or mental stress. It is imperative that the damage must be related to breach of duty. This can be tested by ascertaining whether the damage would have still occurred if breach of duty would not have happened. If the occurrence of damage is independent of duty breach, then the defendant cannot be held for negligence (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). Application It is apparent that in the given case, Craig is the plaintiff who went to the local council to obtain information about the restriction on land block which he was interested in purchasing. There is a duty to care on the part of the local council and the agents representing the same since any wrong information could result in losses which are clearly foreseen. Also, there has been a breach of duty in the given case since the agent could not provide the correct information since he was constantly being disturbed by his mobile. It is reasonable to expect that in public offices, the agent would not attend to personal calls while doing work. Further, damage has been suffered by Craig which could have been avoided had the agent at the local council given the correct information about land acquisition for road widening. Thus, all the elements of tort of negligence are satisfied in the given case. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that Craig has suffered damages (in terms of financial loss) owing to negligence of local council agents. Hence, Craig can sue the local council for damages. 2.Issue The core issue is to determine whether an enforceable contract exists between Craigs company and the architectural firm in light of the actual authority not existing with Tom to enact the contract. Rule Authority granted to an agent can be actual or apparent. While actual authority comes from the position that an individual is duly appointed to, the apparent authority arises from the conduct of the underlying person. If a given individual tends to act in a certain manner which gives a reasonable indication to the third party that the individual has the requisite authority, then the contracts arising in this manner would be considered as enforceable. This is in line with the verdict highlighted in the Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties(Mangal)Ltd[1964] 2 QB 480 case. In the given case also, a person concerned inspite of not being appointed as the director was acting so and hence the contract enacted with the third party was held enforceable (Paterson, Robertson and Duke, 2015). Also, with regards to the concerned individual not having the requisite authority, the interest of the innocent third parties is safeguard in accordance with rule of indoor management. This rule w as highlighted in the landmark Royal British Bank vTurquand(1856) 6 EB 327case (Carter, 2012). Application In the given case, even though Tom is not formally appointed as the managing director but his business card lists his designation as MD and also his conduct reflects the same. Thus it would be appropriate to conclude that in reality Tom has apparent authority to act as managing director. Further, since in the business card and his conduct, it is reflected that Tom is the managing director, hence the architecture firm has reason to assume that Tom has the requisite authority. Considering that the architecture firm has benign intention while entering the contract, hence it would be considered as enforceable in line with doctrine of indoor management. Conclusion Craigs company would be bound by the contract entered into by Tom and the same cannot be considered void on the grounds that Tom lacked the requisite authority. 3.Issue The core issue is to ascertain whether the contract between Craig and Steven has already been discharged or not. Further, in light of the same, it needs to be opined if remaining loan and interest amount can be recovered from Steven. Rule One of the mechanisms of contract discharge is bilateral discharge. Under this category, it is possible for waiver to be granted when one of the parties is unable to completely perform the contractual obligations. In this case, it is possible for the other party to discharge the contract by voluntarily agreeing to the altered standard of performance. However, it is expected that for this to happen there should be some consideration for both the parties involved which should not be necessarily the same. A relevant case in this regards is Christy v Row(1808) 1 Taunt 300 (Carter, 2012). Application In accordance with the given case facts, it is apparent that Steven on account of failure to secure the government contract was unable to make the requisite repayment of $ 1 million along with interest. Hence, Steven offered to Craig that he can make a payment of $ 500,000 and the remaining debt would be waived off. Even though Craig was reluctant but his agreement to the revised terms was voluntary and driven by the consideration to be able to obtain a partial amount which may not be available later. The voluntary consent is also apparent from the fact that Craig did not decide to pursue legal recourse till few weeks when his own financial condition deteriorated and he needed money. Thus, it is apparent that the debt has been completed discharged owing to $ 500,000 payment made by Steven. However, the cade for interest payment may be made since the same was not covered in the settlement. Conclusion The contract between Craig and Steven has already been discharged and hence Steven does not owe any debt. However, Craig may sue Steven for the outstanding interest payment since it was not part of the settlement reached between contracting parties. 4.Issue The core issue is to determine whether there has a breach of contract or the contract was frustrated. Based on this, it needs to be opined as to whether Craig can sue Federating Square in relation to contract being breached. Rule A contract may be discharged through various means. One of these is frustration. The frustration of contract typically takes place when after the enactment of contract, there is change of circumstance which cannot be attributed due to fault of either party but makes the contract obligation impossible to perform. It is noteworthy that frustration does not result when either party is at fault or when it is more expensive or difficult to fulfil the contractual obligations. In the event of the contract rendered frustrated, neither of the parties can sue the other and also the future obligations for each of the parties arising from the contract are considered discharged (Paterson, Robertson and Duke, 2015). A leading case with regards to frustrated contracts is Taylor v Caldwell[1863]EWHC QB J1. In this case, a music hall was rented for four concerts but one week before the date of concert, the music hall caught fire. The honourable judge termed the contract as frustrated in this case and hence ensured that no future obligations arise because of the original contract (Carter, 2012). Application It is apparent that the building caught the fire a night before the event and it was not attributed to the fault of either party. Also, on account of the fire, the building was completely destroyed which meant that the defendant could not arrange the event even at incremental cost. Thus, it would be fair to term the contract as frustrated. Owing to the contract being frustrated, the plaintiff (Craig) would not be able to sue Federating square in relation of breach of contract. Conclusion Since the given contract is frustrated, hence neither party can sue the other citing breach of contract. Hence, Craig would not be able to sue Federating square. References Carter, J. (2012) Contract Act in Australia. 3rd edn. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Davenport, S. and Parker, D. (2014) Business and Law in Australia. 2nd edn.. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2014) Business Law. 8th edn. Sydney: Pearson Publications. Lindgren, K.E. (2011) Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia. 12th edn. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Paterson, J. Robertson, A. and Duke, A. (2015) Principles of Contract Law. 5th edn. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.