nswer all 4 questions.1.Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When sheopened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999she...

1 answer below »
nswer all 4 questions.1.Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When sheopened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the pointwhere she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one night atthe kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep thebusiness going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughterand aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she wouldreceive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that shewould give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds.Advise Emily.2.Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into anarrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front-and backyards of thefamily property mowed, and he will ‘do a bit’ to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return,his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously used agarden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare property,and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richard’s father tells himthat he can’t afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the workfor nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property;besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging. Advise Richard.3.Jenny received a circular from Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon advertising massages andmanicures for $10. Realising that this was an exceptionally good deal, but not surprisedbecause she knew that they had only just opened and were running a number of goodopening specials, she rang and made a booking. When Jenny arrived at the salon she wastold that there had been a mistake on the circular and it should have said $100. Themanager of the salon explained that this was still a good price because normally amassage and manicure would have cost $150. Jenny was furious, as it had taken her 30minutes to get to the shop by car and if she had known it would cost $100, she wouldnever have made the booking. Advise Jenny. Would your advice have been any different ifJenny had the massage and manicure before being told that the cost was $100? Wouldshe have to pay the full price?4.Bruce, while he was so drunk that he didn’t know what he was doing, bid successfully atan auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Bruce didn’tknow what he was doing. However, after Bruce sobered up he confirmed the contractwith the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Brucebound?
Answered Same DayDec 20, 2021

Solution

David answered on Dec 20 2021
3 Votes
1. As per the facts of the given case, Margaret sought the help of her youngest daughter,
Emily, in a family discussion in 2006 to work in her shop that specialised in rare porcelain
dolls. Margaret wanted to keep the business going for another couple of years and then retire.
Emily was to work as long as she was needed and in return, would receive any unsold dolls.
However, when Margaret retired in 2009, she gave away the unsold stock to charity, as theirs
to auction and to keep the proceeds. The issue is as to what Emily should do in this situation.
Now this is a kind of a contract or an agreement between Margaret and Emily for provision
of Emily’s services in lieu of unsold dolls at the time of Margaret’s retirement and
subsequent closing of the shop. But the Contract law makes a distinction between commercial
and non-commercial or family agreements. Family agreements cannot be enforced under the
Contract law on the pretext of being extremely private and trivial in nature. It is said that a
family agreement is not contractually enforceable because the parties to the agreement did
not have an intention to enforce the agreement as a contract. This is based on the justification
that the parties would never have envisaged, at the time of entering in to the agreement, any
legal action as a means of resolving any conflict that may arise. Secondly, it is justified that it
is not socially appropriate for the courts to serve as a
itrators of domestic disputes on the
ground that firstly, such matters are trivial, and secondly, these are extremely private in
nature. However, the law which comes to the rescue of disputes under family agreements is
the law of Estoppel, which is not guided by such considerations of intention. The law
ecognises that where a person makes a promise to another, without any enforceable contract,
then i
espective of the fact that there is no enforceable contract; justice requires that such a
promise be enforced. The relevant case law applicable is Todd v Nico and Commonwealth v
Verwayen . Thus, applying the law of Estoppel to the given case, it is noted that Margaret had
made a promise to Emily to give her any unsold dolls at the time of Margaret’s retirement in
exchange for Emily’s services at the shop till such time. Therefore, Emily can ask for
enforcement of this promise by Margaret on the basis of the law of Estoppel.
2. As per the facts of the given case, Richard, a university student and his millionaire father
enter into an a
angement for the mowing of their front and back garden and for making it
look tidy. Richard agrees to do his part of the a
angement of keeping the gardens tidy in
eturn for a weekly allowance of $200 from his father. They live on a one-hectare...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here