Subject Page Subject Page Week 2 Contract Formation 2 Exclusion Clauses (should look incorporation) 13
Offer v Mere Puffery --- ---
Offer v Invitation to treat Online Contracting 14
Advertisements = invitation to treat --- --- --- --- Week 5 15
Online Sales 3 Termination of Contract
Communication of Offer Breach of Contract
Revocation of Offer Termination by performance
Lapse of Offer --- --- --- --- Termination by Breach 16
Request for Information v Counteroffer 4 -Repudiation (Anticipatory or Conduct)
Acceptance (5 Rules) Breach in Performace (Condtion or Warranty)
--- --- Time (Commercial setting)
The question of certainty 5 --- ---
Week 3 Termination by Frustration 17-18
Intension to make a contract 5-6 --- --- --- --- Damages 18
Consideration (Rules for consideration) 6-7 --- --- --- --- -Measure 19
Special Contract (Create/Not Create) 8 -Causation
--- --- -Remoteness 1st and 2nd Limb 19-20 Week 4 9 --- ---
Interpretation of Contracts (Term v Repre) -Duty to Mitigate 20
--- --- --- --- Classification of Terms (2) 10 Inconvenience/ Disappointment/ Injured Feelings 21 --- --- --- ---
Intepreting Terms (3) 11 Statute -Electronic Transactions Act 1999 for email Collateral Contract (Always warranty)
(Must prove it was of term–breach of contract) -Using email
-When it hits the server
--- --- -Not designated when they are aware
Reasonable notice 12
Name Law/Concept Explanation AOS
Plaintiff v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [HCA 41](pg.6)
Rule of law
Laws are enforced according to the law and not an arbitrary or corrupt way.
Although the offshore immigration detention facility was in breach of PNG law, because the plaintiff was not able to cite any authority in case law or the constitution the claim was rejected that Australia had to abide by international law.
WEEK 1 LAWS
EHT18 v Melbourne IVF [FCA 1421]
(pg.15)
Hierarchy of courts and law reporting The system that courts are either superior or inferior to one another, the High court of Australia being the highest and the magistrates court being the lowest.
Although the state act states that partner’s consent is required for IVF treatment, the commonwealth law states that one cannot be
discriminated because of marital status. Regarding this issue, the court decided that there was discrimination, under the commonwealth law, against the applicant as a woman is not required to obtain consent if she was in a de facto relationship under the Victorian Act. Because of the inconsistency the commonwealth law overrode the state law.
EHT18 v Melbourne IVF [FCA 1421]
(pg.23)
Interpretation of statues – a purposive approach (LITERAL RULE)
To give effect to the intension of the parliament (HOWEVER)
- Literal rule – if words are clear and have one meaning, courts must give effect to that meaning
Regarding a woman’s wish to undertake IVF treatment , the applicant argued that the word ‘partner’ should be interpreted to mean a woman’s partner is only required if that partner is also involved with the woman in seeking treatment and that the term spouse should be read as if it referred to spouses who were living together.
It was denied as the legislation was clear in its terms and it was a matter of Parliament and not the court to amend the act if it is deemed to
operate unfairly.
Brighton Australia Pty v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd
[2018 VSC246]
(pg.27)
Interpretation of statues – a purposive approach To give effect to the intension of the parliament Doctrine of precedent
a previous decision of a court, which can serve as authority for future case where the facts are similar
In terms of whether the terms of the private contract took precedence over the statute, the Victorian Supreme Court held that the ‘no
exclusions’ principle applies as the legislative purpose of the legislation would not be fulfilled if the court privileged private contractual
arrangements above public policy. All courts lower than the supreme court in the hierarchy are bound by the decision.
Offer v Mere Puffery WEEK 2 Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co [QB 256]
(pg.53)
Offer v Mere Puffery- (ADVERTISEMENT-OFFER) Offer- Proposal by one party to enter into a legally binding contract with another.
Unilateral- acceptance is by performance
The court held that the advertisement was more than a “mere puff” as the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co made a serious offer to the whole world that could be accepted by anyone coming forward and satisfying the
conditions. The court deemed it as serious because of the statement that
$1000 (pounds) was deposited with the alliance Bank showing their sincerity in the matter.
Leonard v PepsiCo [88 Supp 2d 116]
(pg.54)
Offer v Mere Puffery- (ADVERTISEMENT- PUFFERY)
Puffery- Statements containing such exaggerated claims and assertions about products or services or real estate that no reasonable person would take them seriously. For this reason, puffs cannot be construed as offers and have no contractual significance.
The court decided that because of the comical or playful manner of the commercial a reasonable person would not conclude that PepsiCo was not offering a Harrier Jet to anyone and was mere puffery.
Offer v Invitation to Treat Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (pg.55)
Offers v Invitation to treat (SHELVING- INVITATION)
Invitation to treat- An indication that a person is prepared to enter negotiations that may (or may not) result in a contract.
Boots Cash Society opened a self-serve chemist. The act in question required prescribed drugs to be sold under supervision of a chemist. It was determined that placing of the goods on the shelf was am invitation to treat and the customer made the “offer” by taking it to the cashier who “accepted” the offer under the supervision of a pharmacist, who was stationed at the checkout at all times.
Advertisements Harris v
Nickerson [QB 286]
(pg.56-57)
Auction Sales/Tenders – Advertisement invitation to treat
An Auctioneer’s call for bids is an invitation to treat where a bid is made. It is an offer from the bidder to buy at that price. The auctioneer may then accept or reject the offer on behalf of seller.
An advertisement was to take place at a certain time and place where the plaintiff travelled to, however the auction had been cancelled. The court held that the advertisement was not an offer merely a declaration of intention or an invitation to treat.
More of the same….but 18 pages more
