Validity of a Contract in Australia - Assignment Example

Name: Surname Instructor: Course: Date: Business law assignment It is quite unfortunate that some people are not always honest when giving pledges or even promises in cases where transactions are taking place. It is for this reason that that many governments have tried to rule over business transactions in an attempt to protect the innocent from fraudulent businessmen. In this regard, the Australian government has not been left behind as per say and it has consequently tried to protect its people from this lot of fraudulent business people who are after the vulnerable consumer population which constitutes the Australian citizens. With this respect, there are contract laws or rather business laws that have been formulated to protect the people who engage in contracts. Talking about contract law, it comprises those laws and regulations which rule over defined promises among business people and consumers. There happens to be a basic law which regulated Australian law. Consequently, there are some other statutes which supplement this common business law due to the rising need to cover any infidelity and breach of contracts. This is particularly important as it enhances and supports significantly consumer protection. This contract law has been integrated between the common law of contract and consumer protection law but of course with some substantial overlap between the two. The consumer protection law focuses on the main ideas which define a contract. It includes laws which look into the terms and conditions that are a characteristic of many contract agreement papers, unfair conduct of the contact parties as well as the unjust terms which may be prevalent in the contract agreements (Emerson 98). Focusing on the current issue of the contract between Malcolm and Georgia, let’s begin by looking at what a contract actually means. A contract can be defined as an agreement which two or more parties get into after subtle considerations have been looked into. A valid contract is said to have occurred when two or more parties which the capacity to make and engage into an agreement which involve legal consideration to do or to desist from conducting a lawful act. If in any case any of these key features that define a contract is missing, then the contract is termed as void or voidable. Let us now consider the basic elements that are termed as important in regard to the validity of a contract: 1. All parties must be in a position to enter into the agreement. 2. There must be an offer by one party. 3. The parties must look into the considerations. 4. A mutual agreement must be engaged between the two parties. 5. The basis of the contract purpose must be agreeable by law. 6. The contract form must meet the legal requirement. Once the above protocol has been engaged, it is said that the parties involved has entered into a contract. When a party in the contact fails to perform in according to the agreement a stated obligation, there is said to be a breach of contract. When such a case occurs, the injured party or the victim of the contract bleach has the capacity to rescind the contracts or withdraw the obligations contained in the contract. The parties can as well agree on replacement of these obligations. These three considerations can be engaged or used with no necessity of getting any help from a judicial proceeding (Bly 23). If in any case the injured party has encountered any monetary losses then they are legible to consort the court system for any compensation to be made. If however the party believes that monetary recompense as unfair, then the party can ask for specific compensation. This form of resolution defines the act of the court asking for equitable amend of pushing performance of the obligations by the defaulted party. Similarly the injured party can move to a court of law to seek for what is referred to as injunctive relief. This is a ruling by a court of law which prohibits the other party from engaging in any other legal act before completing any other activities as stated in the contract agreement. As for the other party which has apparently been accused of breach of contract, the party can seek for defense by looking at the validity of the contract. If in any case that the contract was not valid, then the party is not liable for any loses which occurs in the process of contract undertaking. Many countries have formulated what is refereed to as Statute of Frauds and the Parole Evidence Rule. The Statute of Frauds has greatly been affected by many governments and as per this ruling; the law requires certain classes of contract to be written down on paper so as to be evidential whenever need be. The Parole Evidence Rule has more or less been used to complement the Statute of Fraud and therefore the law requires that when a contract basics have been written down on paper, the written agreement must henceforth contain all the agreement that have been made between the parties. If any amendments on the agreement have to be made this has to be done in writing. This law protects against fraudulent contractors who may claim that amendments were made verbally (Hamilton, James and Cathleen 117). Now with this background information regarding business law that rules over contract agreements, we can conclusively look into the case at hand regarding the contract that was made between Malcolm and Georgia. Georgia who claims that she is a professional in providing pet care as well as a financial advisor, agrees that she would take care of Malcolm’s pets i.e. rabbit and a tropical fish. She sends an agreement form to Malcolm who doesn’t even care to read the terms and conditions that Georgia states to her clients who are willing to seek for her services. As per say, its clear that Malcolm is not aware of the fact that Georgia considers that vulnerability of the tropical fish to death and therefore protects herself from that fact through that contract term stated in the agreement form. At some point, I tended to believe that the contract was somehow invalid because one party; the assignor dos not fully understand the terms of the contract but again considering that this was a mere ignorance from the party as Malcolm was not illiterate, I think that the contract was valid. If in any case Georgia did the right thing or rather fed the tropical fish with the right food and then it died, she would not bear the blame as I was clearly stated in the agreement paper and since Malcolm signed the paper, it means that he fully understood and was aware of all the terms and conditions of the agreement. However we realize that Georgia did not do the right thing, she incorrectly fed the rabbit food to the tropical fish, and this means that she bears full liability to the losses that occurred. In the same context, she incorrectly fed the fish food to the rabbit which caused health complications to the rabbit which apparently was to be taken to a rabbit show at Melbourne where it was to receive an award of $10,000. Due to the health issues arising where the rabbit lost its authentic value by losing its fur it can no longer be shown at the Melbourne rabbit show meaning also that it cannot receive this $10,000 worth award. Again Georgia is liable for the losses which occurred inclusive of the apparent award that the rabbit was to receive (Cross and Roger 86). Again the rabbit food that Georgia fed to the rabbit blocked the aquarium which consequently led to flooding in the house a phenomenon which caused furniture and house destruction. Georgia is still liable for this is it arose from the fact that she initially did something wrong something a professional as she claimed to be could not have done. According to me, I would advise Malcolm to sue Georgia for a breach o contract on the basis that Georgia has caused her unbearable loss from the contract that they engaged into. Despite the fact that he did not read that term about the vulnerability of the tropical fish, there nowhere that term will apply in the defense of Georgia since she did every thing wrong from the beginning. Malcolm should seek full compensation of the losses caused by Georgia. This includes compensation of another tropical fish, another rabbit or rather payment of the veterinary cost to cater for the health trauma caused due to wrong feeding of the rabbit by Georgia as well as full compensation of the destroyed furniture in the house and repair or maintenance cost to repair the damages which occurred due to flooding. This follows the fact that no other legal compensation procedures like replacement of the contract, or specific compensation can apply in this case. In the compensation, Georgia still falls liable for even the $10,000 worth award that the rabbit was to receive at the show in Melbourne. There’s no defense that Georgia can claim against Malcolm in as far as this case is concerned (Henry 67). Works cited Bly, Myron T. Business law. Charleston :Nabu press, 2010. Cross, Frank B. and Roger LeRoy Miller. The Legal Environment of Business. New York: Cengage Learning, 2011 Emerson, Robert W. Business law. New York: Barron's Educational Series, 2009. Hamilton, Alex, James Madison, Jay and Cathleen M. Sullivan. The Federalist Papers. New York: Hayes Barton Press, 2011 Henry R. Cheeseman. Outlines and Highlights for Business Law. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source Inc, 2009 Read More