Answer To: LAW6000_Assessment 2_Case Study Page 1 of 9 ASSESSMENT BRIEF Subject Code and Name LAW6000 Business...
Preeti answered on Nov 05 2021
Running Head: CASE LAWS QUESTIONS
Case Laws Questions
Question 1:
Issue: The main issue in the underlying case is to, ‘analyse and determine whether Matilda is entitled to recover damages from Quick Computers Ltd’. Stated in other terms, legal issue is also based on analysing whether Quick Computers Ltd is liable to pay required sums or compensation amount to Matilda or not. Both the legal issues are analysed in accordance with the principles of contract law.
Rule: The provision of contract law states that formation of legally binding contract requires certain conditions to be fulfilled. These conditions are offer, acceptance, consideration, competence, capacity, and mutuality of obligation. Offer and acceptance is the basic and foremost condition of contract formation which states that offer and acceptance must be made in the specified manner. It should be done in reasonable manner, as acceptance is said to be valid only if the offeree knows and aware of the offer, also, offeree depicts an intention to accept. Also, acceptance is also expressed in unconditional and unequivocal manner as per the terms of the offer. The mode of acceptance can be oral or written, but it should be done in reasonable manner (DiMatteo and Hogg, 2016).
Application: The process of offer and acceptance happened in unreasonable manner in the underlying case. The case also not cleared the fact that whether there is oral or written agreement between Matilda and Quick Computers Ltd. It seems that there is oral agreement between Matilda and Quick Computers Ltd where Matilda asked Quick Computers Ltd to supply her with the latest computer system within the specified time period. There is no well-defined acceptance from Quick Computers Ltd regarding the contract. If it is interested in accepting the offer, then contract law requires that acceptance should be made in the reasonable manner. But, all these aspects are found to be missing in the underlying case. Quick Computers Ltd did not manifest any intention to accept, neither expressed it an reasonable and equivocal manner. The absence or improper fulfilment of norms regarding offer and acceptance in the underlying case does not raise any monetary responsibility on Quick Computers Ltd (Carter, 2013).
In a famous case law, ‘Jeffrey Ross Blue v Michael James Wallace Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)’, court held that plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damage or compensation on account of absence of contractual terms and conditions. In the given case, Mr Blue has made an oral agreement with Mr. Ashley that if Mr Blue could succeed in reducing share price to £8, Mr. Ashley would pay around £15 million. Later on, this agreement was cancelled and Mr Blue is not entitled to raise any allegation against Mr. Ashley due to absence of norms regarding offer and acceptance (Jeffrey Ross Blue -v- Michael James Wallace Ashley, 2017).
Conclusion: In all, Matilda could not raise any allegation against Quick Computers Ltd on account of non-fulfilment of contractual terms of supplying specified computer system in the given time frame. In order to raise allegations against Quick Computers Ltd, Matilda is expected to form a well-defined agreement with Quick Computers Ltd, also, Quick Computers Ltd is expected to show an intention to accept, and, expressing acceptance in an unequivocal and unconditional manner.
Question 2:
Issue: In the given case scenario, legal issue is to determine whether Albert is entitled to work rightfully with MyBags Pty Ltd, also, what are the rights of new owner of MoneyBags Pty Ltd against Albert?
In the given case scenario, Albert worked with ‘MoneyBags Pty Ltd’ as a director and sold it to an investor in later time. However, investor asked Albert to work in the capacity of director and manager of the company with the promise that he would not use any of the intellectual property or trade secrets of the company in any enterprise. But, Albert resigned the company only after 6 months of employment, and, joined his wife’s company named MyBags Pty Ltd. Albert’s joining his wife’s company threatened investor of Albert’s original company and he planned to take legal action against Albert and MyBags Pty Ltd.
Rule: As per the Corporations Act 2001, company’s directors owes obligations to exercise their obligations of acting as a reasonable and prudent person, and, acting in good faith in the overall benefit of the...