Issue:
This IRAC is to determine whether a contract exists between Molly, jack, and Levi in relation to the setup and operation of Sutton 's Surf School. In particularly whether or not Molly is entitled to a share of the business profits.
The relevant focus of this case is contract law. In order for a contact to exist these three attributes need to be met:
Rules:
The relevant focus of this case is contract law. In order for a contact to exist these three attributes need to be met:
Agreement: An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of which include mutual assent, consideration, capacity and legality.
a. S.54(A) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) clearly states that a written contract only applies to the sale or …show more content…
An offer can be made to an individual, group of people, or the whole world (Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball company (1892)).
b. Revocation of an offer must be communicated to the other part before it can be effective Dickson v Dodds (1876)
Acceptance: Contracts can be classified according to the method in which they are accepted:
- Expressly communicated (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co).
- Implied Acceptance (Silence & By Conduct) (Brogden v Metropolitan Railway)
o An offeror cannot stipulate that a lack of response on the part of the offeree will be treated as an acceptance. (Felthouse v Bindley). However, this rule is subject to two qualifications (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd):
♣ If an estoppel can be raised against the offeree; or
♣ The conduct of the offeree amounts to an implication that he/she has accepted the offer.
To revoke an intention, objective testing is applied Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan Railway).
o In such cases, an objective test is used (whether a reasonable bystander would regard the conduct of the offeree, including silence, to indicate to the offeror that the offer had been accepted.) (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan …show more content…
In this instance, a written contract was not needed as S.54(A) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) stipulates that a written contract only applies to the sale or other deposition of land or any interest in land.
2. As the offer to start the lessons were jointly agreed on by Molly, Jack and Levi at a family dinner it could, therefore, be accepted by her siblings. Carlill v carbolic smokemachine company (1892)
3. Jack and Levi did not communicate their desire to revoke the offer to Molly of her acceptance to create a surf school. Therefore, by action and words effectively forming an express contract that stipulates that Molly is able to work within the Business. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876).
4. Therefore, a reasonable bystander based on the objective test would regard the conduct of Molly’s role in the operation of the bookkeeping side of the business, to be of indication that she had accepted the offer. (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan Railway).
5. In this case, due diligence must be given in regard to the relationship of Molly, Jack, and Levi. Higgins J. specifies that “they should be scrutinized most closely before the conclusion is drawn that the parties intended to bind themselves in conversation by legal bounds” (McBride v
This IRAC is to determine whether a contract exists between Molly, jack, and Levi in relation to the setup and operation of Sutton 's Surf School. In particularly whether or not Molly is entitled to a share of the business profits.
The relevant focus of this case is contract law. In order for a contact to exist these three attributes need to be met:
Rules:
The relevant focus of this case is contract law. In order for a contact to exist these three attributes need to be met:
Agreement: An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of which include mutual assent, consideration, capacity and legality.
a. S.54(A) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) clearly states that a written contract only applies to the sale or …show more content…
An offer can be made to an individual, group of people, or the whole world (Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball company (1892)).
b. Revocation of an offer must be communicated to the other part before it can be effective Dickson v Dodds (1876)
Acceptance: Contracts can be classified according to the method in which they are accepted:
- Expressly communicated (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co).
- Implied Acceptance (Silence & By Conduct) (Brogden v Metropolitan Railway)
o An offeror cannot stipulate that a lack of response on the part of the offeree will be treated as an acceptance. (Felthouse v Bindley). However, this rule is subject to two qualifications (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd):
♣ If an estoppel can be raised against the offeree; or
♣ The conduct of the offeree amounts to an implication that he/she has accepted the offer.
To revoke an intention, objective testing is applied Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan Railway).
o In such cases, an objective test is used (whether a reasonable bystander would regard the conduct of the offeree, including silence, to indicate to the offeror that the offer had been accepted.) (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan …show more content…
In this instance, a written contract was not needed as S.54(A) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) stipulates that a written contract only applies to the sale or other deposition of land or any interest in land.
2. As the offer to start the lessons were jointly agreed on by Molly, Jack and Levi at a family dinner it could, therefore, be accepted by her siblings. Carlill v carbolic smokemachine company (1892)
3. Jack and Levi did not communicate their desire to revoke the offer to Molly of her acceptance to create a surf school. Therefore, by action and words effectively forming an express contract that stipulates that Molly is able to work within the Business. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876).
4. Therefore, a reasonable bystander based on the objective test would regard the conduct of Molly’s role in the operation of the bookkeeping side of the business, to be of indication that she had accepted the offer. (Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paul Partners Pty Ltd; Brogden v Metropolitan Railway).
5. In this case, due diligence must be given in regard to the relationship of Molly, Jack, and Levi. Higgins J. specifies that “they should be scrutinized most closely before the conclusion is drawn that the parties intended to bind themselves in conversation by legal bounds” (McBride v