Business Law Case Studies

1035 Words5 Pages
Problem 1 a) Can Tim sue his father Jack on the basis that the parties intended to contract, and that sufficient consideration was applied? b) The relevant rules are every simple contract must be supported by consideration, a promise to fulfil the terms of a contract is not always good consideration, and the rule that an agreement that is commercial in character can amount to a binding contract c) Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72 (Supreme Court of Australia) d) Yes, Tim might be successful in court if it can be proven that Jack provided sufficient consideration in the form of a promise to lend Tim the $50,000, and if clear evidence of intent to contract can be determined, as was determined in Todd v Nicol. Both parties provided…show more content…
c) Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court) d) Angela may well be successful in court, as it could be argued that there is an implied term in the contract that the hotel should provide reasonable care. As seen in similar circumstances in Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd, by leaving the door to Angela’s room unlocked, the hotel did not fulfil this term of providing reasonable care. The sign on the back of the door is not an express term within the contract, as it was not communicated at the time the contract was made. Problem 6 a) Can Andy sue Doug for breach of contract given the terms implied based on the facts of the case? b) The rule that courts will imply a term that was overlooked when the contract was being made, as it was so obvious c) The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 (UK Court of Appeal, Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 693 (Federal Court) d) Andy is likely to be successful in court. Although the only express terms were that Andy would pay $400 for use of the paddocks for his horse, there is a potential implied term that the paddocks would be reasonably equipped to service the horse, especially given both parties understood that the horse would require grass and water during the time it was living in the paddock. As in Costa Vraca v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control, Doug

More about Business Law Case Studies

Open Document