Essays on 2 Problem-solving Questions- One On Contract And One On Corporations Law ( Australian Law) Math Problem

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

Australian LawContract Law and Corporation LawWord Count2326Question 1Contract LawThe first question deals with discharge of contract those results in Contract Termination. Contract Termination: The termination of contract has to follow the below points: When either of the parties breach the contract or by the clauses in the agreement, Or Depending on the performance of the party that offer products or services and by frustration of the party that receive the products or services. (Gillhams, 2008)Context of the Case: In the present case of CCL and BMCL any one of the above conditionalities are not satisfied.

The CCL is withdrawing itself from non-severable contract with BMCL. This does not satisfy any of the terms prescribed for discharge or termination of contract in Contract Law. The readiness of the company is offer and the necessity of CCL can be termed as acceptance. As per the acceptance, the CCL has promised the tractor owners to take the tractors on a 3-month lease. (Media Wiki, 2008) The present context comes under the frustration of the party accepting services. In this context, the party that wants to terminate the contract should prove that the provisions available to CCL are not available when they want to terminate the contract. ( Michael Coyle, 2005) They can do this after reasonable notice where there is no express provision in the contract for termination. ( Gillhams, 2008) Presentation of the Case by Both the Parties: By CCL: In case of considering the utilitarian value and the benefits of the parties, the context of the contract between CCL and the BMCL seen from the benefits accrued by the contract to both the parties. As benefit for CCL in contract is clearing trees using tractors and for the owners is the rent acquired from tractors.

As CCL has contemplated to stop the work, this damage the benefits of CCL in the contract and the reason for that is the government’s decision of imposing water restrictions. It is clear that CCL is ignorant of the future decision of the Government at the time of signing the contract. Thus, CCL as a party loosing benefits from the contract and have right under common and English Law to terminate the contract by giving prior notice to the other party.

In the same case if the tractor owners are not returning the paid amount of $8000 and hiring the tractors for another party at the same time, the CCL can go to the court and can get compensation from the extra benefits of the tractor owners due to the loss of benefits of CCL. ( P. S. Atiyah, 2007) The CCL cannot rely even up to some extent on the aspect of delivery of deeds in property law act 1974.

According to that aspect the execution of an agreement or an instrument in the form of a deed or in the form provided under section 45 or 46, shall not itself import delivery. The fact of execution cannot presume the delivery. According to this concept, the CCL presumed that by returning the tractors it could get back the paid money back. There is not chance for even presuming delivery and this negates the opportunity of even getting the loss of benefits. However, CCL can argue that the loss of benefits will not come under delivery and the negation of presumption will not work.

Nevertheless, this does not provide a complete protection or guarantee to get a legal chance to have the money paid back. (Queensland Government, 1974)

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us