Case Analysis : Auto Supplies Pty Ltd V Selfridge & Co Ltd.

1769 Words Oct 4th, 2016 8 Pages
Question 1:
1. Whether or not Better Brakes Manufacturing (manufacturer) can enforce the RRP term in its contract upon Steve Auto Supplies Pty Ltd (dealer) and Mick’s Mechanics (retailer) depends on whether consideration has been given, determining the parties to an enforceable contract. Under the consideration rule, consideration must move from the promisee, emphasised in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd . The facts of the assigned case parallels that of Dunlop, and thus, is a direct precedent for the issue presented in the case. A contract exists between the manufacturer and retailer completed by consideration, its presence confirmed by the existence and entry to an exclusive contract . Subsequently, a contract exists between the dealer and the retailer given the obtainment of an undertaking agreeing to abide by the manufacturer’s price. On the other hand, no consideration was given by the manufacturer to the retailer for its promise, therefore, the promise cannot be enforced .
Since an enforceable contract exists between the manufacturer and dealer, it should be determined whether the dealer has breached the contract. It is stated that the dealer agreed to the terms of a discount not exceeding 10% off RRP set by the manufacturer and obtaining an undertaking from its retailers that they would abide by the set price. All facts insinuate that the dealer complied with the terms of the contract. For this reason, the manufacturer possesses no grounds to sue…
Open Document