The scenario clearly depicts the unlawful act of Aussie Clothes because they accepted the delivery and then refused to pay the price of the items. In fact, Aussie Clothes sold the items on discounted price to the customers and gain profit. The issue or the problem lies with the Aussie Clothes because instead of returning the items and terminating the contract they accepted the delivery and gained profit. On the other hand, Jump Clothing (seller), took advantage of this unlawful act of Aussie Clothes and initiated a legal action in terms of breach of contract. Consequently, the seller won within their country. However, Aussie Clothes did not defend themselves within the District Court of Hong Kong. This is another mistake occurred on behalf of the buyer. Eventually, now the seller has enforced the Hong Kong judgment in the Supreme Court of NSW.
Applicable Laws/Rules on Legal Issues
Keeping in view the scenario, it can be analyzed that Jump Clothing, Hong Kong did deliver the items; however, the stitching quality of products was not up to the standard of Aussie Clothes. In this case, the most commonly used contract is known as “express contract”. Express contract is the most commonly used type of contract among businesses to deal with high volume orders (Rocketlawyer.com, 2017). Thus, it can be reviewed that, in this scenario both the parties were under an express contract. According to Clarke (2017), the Australian Contract Law clearly describes the terms and conditions of express contract. Whereas the pre-contractual statements are involved within the express contract that, “in some cases representations are not intended to be promissory and therefore do not constitute contractual terms. However, should they prove false, the party to whom they were directed may have remedies available at common law or, more commonly, under statute”. Therefore, in this scenario, it can be observed that, the supplier may have involved within the pre-contractual statements and provided an oral promise to the buyer for a high-quality products. However, the supplier was able to initiate a legal action against the buyer and the decision was in the favor of the supplied. Consequently, this shows that high-quality stitching may have not been mentioned within the written contract. Otherwise, the buyer would have claimed a false representation of pre-contractual statements. Clarke (2017) also adds that, in Australian Contract Law there is no remedy for “sales puff”. …show more content…
“A 'sales puff' refers to exaggerated sales talk. They are not intended by the speaker to be taken literally and a reasonable person would recognise this. As they do not constitute a 'representation' in law or a term, there is no remedy if they turn out to be false”. Whereas it can be reviewed that, the supplied may have exaggerated the quality of the product; thus, the buyer did not pay enough attention to add the terms of misrepresentation over the written contract. Thus, the buyer is only responsible for the terms that are mentioned within the written contract. On the other hand, instead of terminating the commercial contract, Aussie Clothes did an unlawful act and refused to pay for the products after the acceptance of the delivery. In fact, they sold the items to their customers on discount prices. Therefore, Aussie Clothes has breached the express contract by refusing the payment to the seller. Application of the Laws/Rules According to Article 25
Applicable Laws/Rules on Legal Issues
Keeping in view the scenario, it can be analyzed that Jump Clothing, Hong Kong did deliver the items; however, the stitching quality of products was not up to the standard of Aussie Clothes. In this case, the most commonly used contract is known as “express contract”. Express contract is the most commonly used type of contract among businesses to deal with high volume orders (Rocketlawyer.com, 2017). Thus, it can be reviewed that, in this scenario both the parties were under an express contract. According to Clarke (2017), the Australian Contract Law clearly describes the terms and conditions of express contract. Whereas the pre-contractual statements are involved within the express contract that, “in some cases representations are not intended to be promissory and therefore do not constitute contractual terms. However, should they prove false, the party to whom they were directed may have remedies available at common law or, more commonly, under statute”. Therefore, in this scenario, it can be observed that, the supplier may have involved within the pre-contractual statements and provided an oral promise to the buyer for a high-quality products. However, the supplier was able to initiate a legal action against the buyer and the decision was in the favor of the supplied. Consequently, this shows that high-quality stitching may have not been mentioned within the written contract. Otherwise, the buyer would have claimed a false representation of pre-contractual statements. Clarke (2017) also adds that, in Australian Contract Law there is no remedy for “sales puff”. …show more content…
“A 'sales puff' refers to exaggerated sales talk. They are not intended by the speaker to be taken literally and a reasonable person would recognise this. As they do not constitute a 'representation' in law or a term, there is no remedy if they turn out to be false”. Whereas it can be reviewed that, the supplied may have exaggerated the quality of the product; thus, the buyer did not pay enough attention to add the terms of misrepresentation over the written contract. Thus, the buyer is only responsible for the terms that are mentioned within the written contract. On the other hand, instead of terminating the commercial contract, Aussie Clothes did an unlawful act and refused to pay for the products after the acceptance of the delivery. In fact, they sold the items to their customers on discount prices. Therefore, Aussie Clothes has breached the express contract by refusing the payment to the seller. Application of the Laws/Rules According to Article 25