Business law Essay Example

Course/ Semester

No, there is no enforceable contract between Tim and Jen. Under the Australian Contact Law, a contract can suffice as enforceable only if five conditions and parameters are fulfilled. The fist parameter is the presence of an agreement between the parties involved which consists of an offer from the proposing party and an acceptance from the other party. In this case, Jen offers Tim a job as a DJ and they proceed to discuss the details in terms of payment and dates which can be interpreted as acceptance on Tim’s side. However, although there is an agreement, the offer can be revoked by Jen, directly or indirectly, and in any form of words or conduct that conveys the intention to no longer be bound by the offer. In this case, Jen’s choice not to reply to the affirmative to Tim’s last email can be interpreted as such hence nullifying the agreement and consequently nullifying any oral contract.

Therefore all she has to do is remain silent on the matter or decide to communicate as much to Tim about her decision not to hire him. In both Smith v Hughes1 and Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul2, the courts decisions were based on the fact that there was an initial offer and acceptance of said agreement orally. Both the plaintiffs, Smith and Pavey, were within their rights to seek compensation when the defendants failed to fulfill their end of the agreement. However, the lack of a clear agreement between Jen and Tim absolves Jen of any liability in her decision to desist from hiring Tim.

The second parameter that must exist is a consideration, which refers to a price that the party accepting the offer is demanding in exchange for their agreement to the offer. In this case, such consideration exists in the form of the charges Tim charges for the weekend Special package and the additional $30 he is willing to charge for any extra hours after the 4 hours agreed upon have elapsed. However, presence of a consideration alone in the absence of other conditions does not make an oral contract enforceable

The third condition is the intention to create legal relations between the parties involved. This intention can be symbolized by the presence of a consideration. In this case, such a prerequisite for an enforceable contract exists in that, had Jen accepted Tim’s final offer regarding the hourly wage after expiry of the hours covered in the weekend special package, she was willing to remunerate Tim after the party hence constituting an intention to create legal relations.

The forth condition is that the partisans in a contract, oral or otherwise, must have the capacity to enter into such a contract if it is to be deemed enforceable. Among the conditions necessary to deem such parties to have the capacity to enter into contracts, is the requirement that parties be above 18 years old3. However, in special cases, such as beneficial contracts of employment such as are the case with Tim, minors have the capacity to enter into contractual obligations. The final condition is the requirement for formalities. However, this condition only applies to selected contacts that require additional documentation. In this case, however, no such formalities are needed for Jen and Tim’s oral contract to be deemed enforceable.

However, although all the other elements required to make an oral agreement enforceable exists in this case, the absence of a clear acceptance and Jen’s conduct that indicates the intention to no longer be bound by her offer are grounds enough to make the contract un-enforceable

Yes, the promissory estoppel principle is relevant to Jen’s dispute with Simon. The promissory estoppels by essence aims to stop an individual or party from distancing themselves or terminating a relationship in which through their actions or promises had led another party to act or perform certain obligations. Therefore, one cannot absolve themselves from the repercussions and liabilities of having led another party into believing they would purchase their product or offer certain services. However, such promises might be implied due to the circumstances surrounding the situation rather than stated4. However, in this case, the promises made by Jen are quite elaborate. Additionally, she goes to further take the order form with her indicating she had all the intentions of purchasing the cake from Simon. Although, Jen did not finally return the order form as required for Simon to commence working on the order, the fact that Simon took the initiative to communicate his intention to begin working on the order and Jen had already agreed orally to the order gives Simon the right to rely on promissory estoppels to enforce the agreement5. Additionally, Simon can argue that the order form was merely a formality and that there was reasonable understanding to constitute grounds for promissory estoppels and an enforceable contract

As it stands, there is no enforceable contract between Jen and Adam. Most of the conditions required for there to be an enforceable contract are absent in this case. There is no clear agreement between Jen and Adam at the end of the conversation, as Adam does not reply to the affirmative with regard to Jen’s offer hence lack of an agreement.

Additionally, there is lack of a consideration as Jen does not offer Adam any monetary or material reward for his help and instead requires that Adam help her as a favor for her helping him with his assignments. Though both parties have the capacity and required conditions to make the contract, the lack of an agreement a discernable consideration makes the contract between them un-enforceable and nothing more than gratuitous promises.
Q. 4

No, Bill is not entitled to any remuneration by Jen. the precipitates for an enforceable contract stipulate that an offer can be made to an individual , group or broadcasted to the world at large6. Additionally, such recipients of the offer to don’t have to acknowledge receipt of the offer nor communicate acceptance but rather by performing the actions stipulated in the offer, can oblige the offeror to an enforceable contract. In this case, had the intended party, Bill’s daughter received the message and helped out, she would have been eligible for remuneration. However since the broadcast message is targeted at a selected group of individuals, Cousins, any other parties cannot oblige Jen into a contract by performing the actions stipulated. Additionally, Bill did not have the consent of his daughter and therefore cannot claim that he was acting as her representative or agent in fulfilling the contract stipulated in the text. Therefore, bill does not have the capacity to enter into an enforceable contract with Jen which would have resulted in payment of $20 for work done in preparing for the party. Consequently, if Bill does perform the work stipulated by Jen without further consultation, Jen is absolved from compensating him according to the claims in her text as he does not fit in the audience the contract intended.

References.

CARTER, J. W. (2010). Carter’s guide to Australian contract law. Chatswood, N.S.W., LexisNexis Butterworths.

RADAN, P., GOOLEY, J., & VICKOVICH, I. (2009). Principles of Australian contract law: cases and materials. Chatswood, N.S.W., LexisNexis Butterworths.

1
Smith v Hughes Court of Queen’s Bench [1871] LR 6 QB 597

2
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221

3
Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1

4
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) House of Lords

5
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher High Court of Australia (1988) 164 CLR 387 [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 76 ALR 513

6
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Court of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1