Contract Law

Firstly, we have to distinguish whether Jack makes an invitation to tender or an invitation to treat. According to Harvela Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd (1986), the usual analysis is that ‘an invitation to tender for a particular project is simply an invitation to treat. ' However, in the case of Harvela Investments Ltd, the invitation to tender is treated as an offer implicating legal obligations. I believe that Jack was making an invitation to treat rather than an invitation to tender, constituting an offer, for several reasons; firstly, the terms of the invitation are vague, with no specification of time for which acceptance of the ‘most competitive tender ' will remain open till; secondly, I infer that the lack

Dods was an auctioneer. He advertised a sale of horses, warranted as good workers. Ferrier bought a horse, but later informed Dods that it was unfit for work. Dods told Ferrier that he had the right to return the horse, and suggested he return her to her former owner. F did this but did not get his money back - he then tried to sue Dods.

related to the second case, being the second case was fought to reverse the outcome of the first

Although there are many cases that are more significant these first cases show the precedent he set. (1)

This case represents quite a relaxed approach to conflicts. It is in line with cases such as Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 1 All ER 517 (HL) and World Medical Manufacturing v Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick [2000] VSC 196 (Gillard J). More traditional approaches have been more strict, not requiring identification of actual confidential information, but merely the chance of misuse, or the appearance of impropriety. See e.g. Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501 (Brooking JA); Village Roadshow v Blake Dawson [2003] VSC 505 (Byrne J); Connell v Pistorino [2009] VSC 289 (Byrne J); and Nettle J in Sent and Primelife Corporation Ltd v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd and Hills [2002] VSC 429 (7 October 2002) where Jeff Sher QC was restrained on the basis of a brief 14 years previously he could not even remember! Whilst the liberal view might be the current law, Nettle J is now on the High Court and thus could signal a shift.

The difficulty of establishing, to a higher standard, that an error in jury selection had such a substantial impact on a jury's verdict, with no way to evaluate what happened inside the jury room; the court considered that an appeal must establish whether to apply a harmless error doctrine. (Childs, 1999) "Nonetheless, once the use of a peremptory challenge is framed as a choice, just like the remainder of a defendant's peremptory challenges, the question dissolves and, as Justice Ginsburg notes, harmless error analysis becomes irrelevant" (Childs, 1999).

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

2. Reference Parker v. Schuller (1901) in which Seller sues Buyer under a CIF K for not shipping the goods. The sellers lost on appeal b/c they should have argued that the breach occurred when B failed to ship the documents, b/c the documents could not have been shipped without shipping the goods.

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law

Lewis sold his car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paid by cheque, providing a film studio pass as a proof of his identity. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque book and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car. It was held that this contract cannot be voided as the plaintiff cannot show the importance of identity. The mistaken belief to the credibility of act is not sufficient.