Business Law Individual Research Assignment

The principle of unconscianbility within Australian consumer law was applied most notably in the case of Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio. These judgments later played a role in determining the outcome of the Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd, whereby the High court considered the principles and outcomes from the first case in the latter. Unconscionable conduct is concerned with the abuse of a dominant position by one contracting party over a weaker contracting party. When determining if this principle of unconscionable conduct has occurred, three main principled must be assed:

Sesamware is a Japanese software company which is very popular for open source software. Sesamware got international approval with an online multiplayer fantasy dimension game, Para World in mid-1990. Para world was very popular in the world between 2001 and 2004. Firstly, it was installed as part of the bundle downloaded by hundreds of millions of gamers around the globe. The open source code helped to easily adapt every facet of computer life for all platforms and operating, networking, navigation and security systems.

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.

In the case of Sam vs. Quinn, his landlord, and the national chain store. Sam is who is working on a great innovation, a device that sounds like a barking dog that will help assist in the safety and welfare of others. Several months ago, Sam hit the jackpot that would change his life and landed in a verbal contract to sell 1000 units to a national chain store. However, this young inventor has been mass producing this product from his place of residence, his apartment, own by Mr. Quinn. Sam arrives home one day to find two letters, one from the chain store demanding the 1000 units be delivered immediately. The other was an eviction notice from Mr. Quinn stating that his barking machine has been pestering the other tenants and that Sam was not supposed to be conducting business from his apartment. Sam is furious at both situations and decides to pro-sue the matters. Therefore, before the court can rule on these cases, the court should determine the various elements whether there is a valid contract, a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam’s claims.

Promisee must incur a detriment or confer a benefit on the promisor (Currie v Misa).

This paper is prepared in order to understand the IRAC format (Issues, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion). The IRAC format is considered as the standard format for soling the case studies of the law. In this paper, the case of “ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER (2007)” is selected to demonstrate the learning about the comprehension and understanding of terminology of law, particularly the terms used in the Law of Tort. Moreover, critical things and case law searching to solve the case study is also practiced and properly referenced in the solution of the case study. Here is the case study solution:

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

In the Final Paper (Case Study) it speaks to the following case and circumstances. Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced.

Please answer the questions posed at the end of each case study in essay form.  Each essay will be judged on your capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions.

The equitable doctrine of implied-in-law contract, a quasi-contract, would have allowed the court to award monetary damages to a plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the parties (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 195). This would apply to the situation in which Sam received some form of payment for his units before he shipped the units to the store. In this case, Sam would have been under the legal obligation to send the units to the chain store. Promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance) is an equity doctrine that permits a court to order enforcement of a contract that lacks consideration (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 220). Promissory estoppel is used to avoid injustice. The elements of the promissory estoppel include the promisor making a promise, the promiseé replying to the promise, the promiseé taking action on the promise, and experiencing injustice when the promise was not enforced. The promissory estoppel in this case is invalid because there was no discussion about the compensation in return for the 1,000 units, no action based on the promise, and no injustice suffered as a result of fulfilling a

The rule that courts will imply a term that was overlooked when the contract was being made, as it was so obvious

Evaluate the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] AC 677, [2016] 2 WLR 821

The distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppels is that, proprietary estoppels arises from an owner’s encouragement of or acquiescence in another’s mistaken belief about his present or future rights in the owner’s property: in other words, the owner represents in some way that the belief is correct whereas, promissory estoppels arises from a promise made from the promisor to the promisee not to enforce his rights, then later on seeks to go back on his promise and is unable to. A hypothetical case discussed by Lord Cranworth in Ramsden v Ryson: