Business LAw

Business LAw

QUESTIONS:
There are three (3) questions and all questions must be answered. The questions are not equally weighted.(all answers must be based on Australian Business Law)
1.    Dorothy, a widow, felt the family home was now too large for her to manage.  She told her adult children that she was selling the home called ‘Gum Leaves’.  Brian, Dorothy’s son’s closest friend, had always loved Gum Leaves and offered to buy it from Dorothy.  Dorothy thought about Brian’s offer and sent him a letter which stated in part:
“I would be happy to sell you my family home ‘Gum Leaves’ for a price of $2,000,000.”
Brian responded that he would only be able to pay $1,500,000, payable in four equal instalments over a two year period.
Dorothy wrote back to Brian, indicating that she was prepared to accept $1,500,000, and asking whether he would pay cash in one lump sum on settlement. .Brian then replied:
“I am delighted that we have reached agreement about the sale of “Gum Leaves”. I will need to pay you in four instalments as previously advised.”
Meanwhile, Dorothy received a letter from Lionel, a property developer, which advised:
“I would be happy to pay $1,750,000 in cash for your fine family home. Please advise by phoning 9788 2XXX if this is acceptable to you.”
After she received the reply from Brian advising he would still be paying in instalments, Dorothy phonedLionel and said that she was happy to accept his offer, subject only to a contract being drawn up in a form which was acceptable to her family solicitors.
Dorothy phones her son David, telling him that she has sold the house to Lionel and asks him to let Brian know.  When David phones Brian, Brian says “It’s too late – we already have a contract.”
Lionel changes his mind and tells Dorothy he is not proceeding with the purchase.
Advise Dorothy whether she has a binding contract for the sale of Gum Leaveswith either/neither or both of Lionel and Brian.
15 MARKS

2.Rachael successfully breeds dogs.  She sells some of the puppies (young dogs), which are highly prized.  Emily agrees to buy one of the young dogs, called Fang. for $3,000, to be paid in two instalments of $1,500 each.  She pays the first instalment and takes the dog away.  Emily later calls Rachael and says “Can you promise me that Fang is even tempered?”  Rachael says that he is and Emily promises to pay the final instalment of the purchase price.  She transfers the money the following day.
Fang bites Emily in a fit of bad temper, hurting her hand.  Emily commences proceedings against Rachael for breach of contract.  Rachael denies that Fang’s temper was ever a term of the contract.
Advise Rachael.
5 MARKS

3.    Phillip takes his family to Kangaroo Island for the day. Arriving at the ferry, which he has used before, he is given a ticket on paying the fare.  On the reverse side is written:

“All vehicles and passengers use this ferry at their own risk”

He does not read these words nor does he see the notice on the ferry itself that has identical wording.  Due to negligent navigation by its captain the ferry collides with an underwater obstruction marked by a warning buoy.  The ferry sinks slowly enough for all the passengers and crew to be rescued but the ferry and vehicles on it are lost.
CanPhillip sue the ferry company for the loss of his car? Explain your answer.
10 MARKS

Instruction (MUST READ BEFORE WRITING)

How to approach the legal hypothetical:
1.  Identify the legal issues from the problem. Be logical in expressing them.
2.  Identify and explain the relevant law for each of the legal issues, giving legal support and authority where possible.
3.  Apply the relevant law to the facts of your problem, exploring all reasonable arguments.  Explain why the law you just stated is relevant to the facts of the problem.  As far as possible use the actual words stated in the problem when explaining the law’s relevance.
4.  Consider any relevant defences or remedies, if appropriate, and reach a conclusion, if possible, or at least state which view is more likely or stronger.

The marking criteria tell you that you are being assessed as follows:
Identification of legal issues;
Knowledge of topic content;
Use of relevant materials;
Engagement with questions;
Structure, coherence and clarity of argument;
Quality of English writing;
Presentation.

One of these criteria is “Use of relevant materials – Have you supported your answers with suitable evidence and referencing?”  This assignment is not intended as a research assignment so students are not expected to find their own legal authorities for a principle of law they wish to use to support an argument they are making. However you are asked to correctly cite and reference that authority.
For a case this means the parties names are given in italics followed by the year, report and page number and then reference it to your actual source.
For example if you wanted to argue a term of a contract was in restraint of trade and you wanted to refer to an authority, you would state the legal principle then say something like ‘as established in Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 cited in Young, A,&Devery, P (2015, 184) if using Harvard style.  You then provide a reference list fully referencing this book.  If using another referencing style then change this accordingly. If using footnotes you are advised you do not need a bibliography.  What we need is accurate identification of where you found your authority.

Another point I want to emphasise is that you are instructed NOT to attach a copy of the assignment instructions, or the questions themselves,but to number your answers to correspond to the numbered questions.  There is a strict word count and you may not be aware of your proper word count if you do this.