• Home
  • Law
  • Four step process and a Short answer question

Four step process and a Short answer question Essay Example

  • Category:
    Law
  • Document type:
    Essay
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    2109

LAW IN RELATION TO THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM 9

LAW IN RELATION TO THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

QUESTION 1:

A contract is a legally binding agreement made between two or more parties. The agreement can either be verbal or written. For a contract to be legally binding, the elements of intention, agreement and consideration have to be present in the contract process for it to be considered valid. The other important question is whether the contract is also legally enforceable in a court of law and a legal relationship materializes between the parties.

In the case of Julia and Steven, the agreement was made verbally. The intention to create a legally binding contract by Steven was expressed through wanting to buy the comb and the antique mirror in Julia’s shop window. An offer to sell the comb and the antique mirror worth 250 dollars for 200 dollars was made by Julia. This shows that both the parties were willing to enter into the contract though the terms were not very clear as it was not yet agreed by both parties whether it will or will not be. The issue of acceptance comes into existence when Julia agrees to sell the antique and even gives Steven a deadline to confirm his acceptance to buy the products. Steven then accepts to enter into the contract when he sends the message to Julia agreeing to buy the antique mirror and the comb, thus gives the surety for the existence of the contract.

The two parties have performed the next element of acceptance thus validating the contract terms but the element of consideration is the third important requirement for the contract’s validity. The issue of consideration was only discussed by the two parties as we are told in the question but as an assumption that it existed it is therefore a valid contract as all the elements are present. However, the contract is not really valid as the terms are not clearly stated and reached upon as to whether Steven has agreed to enter into the contract with Julia.

The intention to enter into a legally binding contract is clearly evident two parties show interest to create a legally binding relationship and even work towards binding the contract. The two parties are not familiar with each other but create an agreement and terms under the legally acceptable terms as a business entity and a buyer who is Steve. The legal relationship to materialize between the two parties can therefore materialize. The contract existent between Samantha and Julia shows intention whereby Samantha shows interest in the products.

Acceptance comes about when Julia agrees to sell the comb to Samantha who gives a consideration in return to the exchange of the antique mirror and the comb. The legal relationship created between the two parties is legally enforceable and is sealed upon being perfumed by both parties as agreed. The two parties don’t know each other closely as they are not familiar with each other. The terms are business-like thus a legal relationship materializes between the parties. The contract that comes about thereof is valid and legally acceptable. Samantha here acts as a neutral party as she is not aware of any existing contract between Steve and Julia. This therefore validates the contract between Julia and Samantha as all the elements hare presented and acted upon on the spot.

Julia enters the contract with Samantha upon the assumption that Steve has not performed his promise which was to confirm his acceptance before 10am the next morning in order to validate the contract. The contract is terminated by frustration as Julia is not able to perform her terms in the contract because she has sold them to another buyer. Julia calls to inform Steve who later confirms that he performed the terms of the contract and left a message as agreed with Julia but, she gets to hear the message too late when the products desired are already sold to another buyer who offered better terms of the contract compared to Steve. Julia is not able to sell the special offer to Steven because; the product is already sold to another buyer as she entered into the other contract with no knowledge of the validity and assurance from the first buyer who was Steve. The agreement not legally binding as it just a mere agreement made by Steve to confirm his agreement with regard to the terms of the contract between the two parties involved.

QUESTION 2:

There are elements that are considered in order to validate any contract. In this case Annette and Paul had the intention to create a legally binding agreement. A legal relationship can materialize as the parties know each other casually but enter into the contract in terms of bu8siness ties. The agreement is accepted under the legal systems of the laws. The offer was made by Paul and Annette showed interest in the offer. The contract was made both verbally and the written document which was given to Annette as a docket. There was an acceptance with regard to both parties. Annette accepted the terms of the contract upon discussing the price and Paul also accepted the terms and assured that the work would be done thus showing the intention to create the contract between the two parties involved.

A consideration was given upon the agreed terms being fulfilled by both parties, the other tangible evidence was the presence of the docket which clearly spelled out the terms of the contract and the amount involved. Annette is clearly seen to have misinterpreted the terms of the contract as she seemed to be not fully aware of all the conditions involved upon accepting to enter into the contract. The docket was to clearly spell out the terms involved but Annette thought it served the purpose of being given the correct racquets upon requesting them to be given to her. This evidence is written and acts as a parole evidence rule thus it carries the most weight in the contract.

The contract shows some promises and implied agreements which qualify to be a warranty when Paul assures Annette that the racquets will be re-strung using the highest grade of materials. The warranty gives a clear assurance and promise that the restringing can be relied upon by Annette. This is however disputed when confirmed that the implied terms are not met upon being tested subsequently. This is further confirmed with the fact that the restringing was done yes, but not with an employee but with the son who is not an employee thus does not know the specific materials required for the restringing of the racquet.

The condition that was express in the contract whereby no responsibility is taken for demonstrated negligence of the workers upon the losses that accrue to the customer is not valid. The re-stringing is not done by the worker yet the condition protecting the workers negligence only applies to workers. The son who is not a worker in the firm performs the re-stringing and is therefore not protected by the terms in the condition as the terms only apply to an employee in the firm. The condition is however damaged upon realization that the re-stringing is done by a non-employee of the firm.

The exclusion clause in the contract thus does not give any reliance upon the judgment and the validity of the terms which were not clear to Annette. The contract thus is legally binding as the three elements of offer, intention to create a legally binding agreement, acceptance and consideration are fulfilled succinctly. The terms of the contract however are not very clear between the two parties as Annette is not clearly aware of the exclusion clause which acts as a condition, but ignorance is still not a defense in law.

This shows that the terms of the contract were not clear; it is valid as the three elements are fulfilled but the exclusion terms are not applicable in this case. This is due to the fact that the restringing was done by a person who is not an employee to the firm thus the law decision in this contract should not put into consideration the exclusion terms. The terms .of the contract seem to also protect the employee’s negligence. The employee showed negligence by allowing the son to restring the racquet. The term however protects the company from taking any responsibilities of losses that accrue to a customer as a result of defective work or products to the workmanship of the employees.

This shows that the company protects the employees and any losses that accrue as a result of this are not taken into consideration by the company. Annette thus was not clearly aware of the terms as though being clearly spelled out she was ignorant. She entered into the contract not being fully aware of the terms which are quite important thus the acceptance has some niche of agreement which is quite an important element as it bridges from intention.

New South Wales is a state in Australia, Victoria is in Seychelles. Singapore has the best judicial system and that is known in Asia. The New South Wales falls in another territory and has its own Acts from the laws in the constitution in accordance with the constitution Act 1902: the constitution grants the court the power to make laws that regard to peace, welfare and good government of the New South Wales (Banks, 2007). The case in this situation has the powers vested upon it legally thus the decision by the court has an impact in the law making system.

The court of appeal unanimously in Victoria which also falls in a different state in Australia shows that they have a legal system followed and their own precedents and laws to reach to the decision made by the Supreme Court in Victoria. The precedent to be followed falls under the adversarial and the inquisitorial system. (Banks, 2007)This is where the two competing sided of a ruling are heard independently and the case investigated into. The decision is reached upon by applying the law that governs the state as the lawyers and the judges have the same training. The inquisitorial idea is quite important too as, the Australian legal system has adopted some of the characteristics due to the fact that it has its benefits of the decision being fairer and both parties are given the same weight and attention upon the matter being presented in the court (AKPET)

The judges and lawyers in Australia are believed to have more training and are believed to have greater experience and expert knowledge. This shows that if the judge in Australia is faced with conflicting opinions he/she has the enough knowledge and experience to make a ruling in the case with regards to his/her state which falls in the Western part. The high court in Australia has unlimited powers to try cases but can easily. The decisions made by the court are binding to the courts in all the states including the courts in the different states and territories in Australia (AKPET)

The Singapore has the best judicial system thus the judge can adopt the system in the ruling of the case involving the two states. The judicial system has the authority to make laws in regard to their interpretation of the law as the full bench is the final interpretation of the constitution (Gifford, Donald James, and Donald, 1987).This shows that their decisions are final and the legislation can be influenced with regard to the other rulings in other courts. To settle the dispute, the equal opportunity tribunal is applicable in the ruling of the case as it is used to attain social cohesion among the different states in the cases of disputes arising between the states either in the Northern or Southern sections of Australia as presented in the situation above.

The issue on whether to adopt a strong decision from the court of Singapore will depend on if the standards are acceptable, fair and in accordance with the standards of the state. The ruling of the judge is final as long as it follows the rules and standards (Gifford, Donald James, and Donald, 1987). This will act as a new precedent in the case of a similar case arising as the judge will improve on the systems set so as to make a new law that might govern such disputes in the future.

REFERENCES

Gifford, Donald James, and Donald Gifford. Understanding the Australian legal system. Cavendish Pub.(Australia), 1997.

Clark, Homer Harrison. The law of domestic relations in the United States. West Publishing Company, 1987.