LAW 2442 Commercial Law

1. Kevin had signed a binding contract with the bank. Although Kevin did not borrow any loans from the bank, he stood as a guarantor. He had accepted to guarantee his fiancé Michaela who was to borrow a loan of $1 million so as to finance his new business idea. This, therefore, imp-lies that Kevin was a party to this contract. He offered to use his home as a guarantee. In case Michaela defaults on the loan, then, Kevin has to bear a liability. Meaning, he should repay the loan on behalf of Michaela. The legal option that Kevin has is that he can seek a legal intervention of the court. He can file for a court injunction in the court of law so as to stop the bank from enforcing the contract that might contribute to the loss of his him that might be auctioned in case of a default. Accord8ing to the contract, Kevin can forfeit the home if the loan is not repaid as agreed. If the case goes through a full litigation process, then, it will have to be determined by using the Australian Contract Law as well as the Common Laws. The case can also be determined by relying on certain case laws which have been used as precedence in the determination of contract laws. Some of the case laws which apply in this case scenario are Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), Balfour V Balfour (1919), Wakeling V Ripley (1951), and White V Bluett (1853).

These are some of the case laws which can be used in the determination of his case. In these cases, the court made a ruling based on the validity of the contract. Generally, all contracts were regarded as valid and enforceable if they encompassed the fundamental elements of offer, offer acceptance, intent to create a legally binding contract, and the determination of the offers and acceptance. This, therefore, implies that the court will make its ruling after ascertaining that there was a valid contract and it was actually breached by acting contrary to its terms.

However, from my view, Kevin is not likely to win his case because the contract he had with the bank and Michaela was a binding one. Failure to repay the loan by Michaela means that it is Kevin who should be liable. As a guarantor, has to forfeit his property. However, he can only get an injunction so as to negotiate with Michaela on the right thing to do. The court cannot exonerate Kevin on the basis of the termination of his marital contract with Michaela. He bank has absolutely nothing to do with that. In this case, Kevin should be ready to repay the loan on behalf of Michaela or renegotiate for anew repayment plan as he negotiates with Michaela on the next course of action.

1. The car belongs to Kevin. So, as the rightful owner, Kevin has a right to sell the car as long as he wishes. The contract that Kevin had with Janice Johnson over the sale of the car was a binding one. The contract should have been enforced because it was valid. It was valid since it met the criteria and had the elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and legal relationship content. Since the contract was biding, both the parties had no choice, but to abide by it at all costs. Failure to which, there would be a breach of the contract. Having said this, it is worth noting that Janice had violated the terms of the contract that she had signed with Kevin. Failure to buy the car and pay $9,500 by 10^th May means that she had breached the terms of the contract to which she had agreed. In this regard, Kevin has a right to do whatever he pleases with the car. Meaning, the car is now Kevin’s and he no longer has an obligation to fulfil the agreement he had with Janice. The time frame that was agreed upon has already expired. So, it means that Kevin now has a right to sell the car to any other buyer or keep it for himself the way he has decided to. As a buyer, Janice has no righto compel Kevin to sell the car after 12^th. Neither can Janice sue Kevin for a violation since he did not breach any contract. This case can be handled by applying the principles of the Australian contract law which recognizes the signing of a binding and valid sale contract between the buyers and sellers. The matter can also be heard using the case laws like Roscorla C Thomas (1842), Stilk V Myrick (1809), and Central London Property Trust Ltd V High Trees House Ltd (1947). These cases have provided a precedence for the determination of contract cases that might arise at any given time. They can be applied when determining this case because it was also a contract that was signed between different parties. Since the parties had entered into a contract willingly, the court can determine it was indeed binding and that there was any breaches whatsoever. If a breach is found, then, the responsible party must be reprimanded.

I would to conclude by thanking you for seeking my advice. I hope that I have provided you with exhaustive and research-based information that would empower you with the right knowledge to offer ideal advisory to our revered client. Thank you.

1. In this case scenario, there was a contract between Adonis Georgiadis and the Dry Co. Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd. The contract was a valid one because it was done in a compliance with the law. Each of the parties had obligations to mandatorily fulfil. However, based on the complaints that Adonis (the client) raised, it is evident that Dry Co. Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd-the service-provider had not fulfilled its obligations as per the terms of the contract. That is why the client has expressed some dissatisfaction. This contract is covered by the Australian contract laws as well as the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). As a client, Adonis had certain rights that the service-provider had to fulfil. The contract laws gives Adonis a right to get the right services as per the terms of the contract. The service-provider has an obligation to ensure that it offers the right services that the client had requested.

The ACL entitles the client to certain warranties. Meaning, in this contract, Adonis was supposed to enjoy certain warrantees from the service-provider. Some of the warranties that the client would have gotten include a right to get a service which has acceptable quality, match the client’s description, honors the warrantees, fit for a defined purpose, services offered within the stipulated time frame, and offered using he right skill and due care. However, from the available information, it is evident that the client did not receive all these warrantees. Although he had paid money to the c0ompany to wash the clothes, there are lots of complaints that arose thereafter. Meaning, the service-provider failed to discharge his role as he ought to.

Adonis should file a suit against   Dry Co. Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd for a breach of contract. The company had breached the contract that they had signed with the client. Adonis signed a contract so that the company would offer it cleaning services in which it specializes. However, the loss of the clothes as well as the damaging of their quality indicates that the company was negligent. The client should, therefore, accuse the company of negligence. The case of negligence arose because there is an element of duty of care, breach of duty of care, causation, and damages.  The case merits because it aligns with the precedence set in the major negligence cases like Bolton v Stone (1951); Yates v Jones (1990); Hackshaw v Shaw (1984); and Hedley v Heller in which the court ruled that a plaintiff is liable for compensation in case of a proof of a breach of duty of care, causation, and damages. These are the case laws which can be relied upon to determine if, indeed, the defendant is liable of the negligent claims and can be liable for compensating the client for the losses suffered as a result of the breach.  They can provide a good precedence for a proper determination of this case. So, they should be used.

1. The plaintiff has two options to explore in order to address the issue that has risen. The first option is out-of-court settlement. Here, the matter can be handled without involving the court of law. Besides, the matter can be handled through a litigation process. Here, the plaintiff can file for a legal suit against the defendant before a court of law. The civil court will then get an opportunity to hear and determine the case with the sole purpose of compensating the plaintiff for all the damages suffered. For the plaintiff to win this case, he should rely on the ACL as a source of defense. He should not opt for the contract laws because he might lose the case. That might happen because of the terms and conditions that he service-provider had outlined at the back of its receipt. Such conditions like the service at owner’s risk might exonerate the company of any breaches and instead make the plaintiff to be liable for all the damages that he suffered as a result of the losses of and damages to the clothes. The ACL can provide a protection since it is a legislation that is exclusively for the protection of the rights of the consumers from any form of exploitation that they might suffer in the hands of the unscrupulous traders. Although the defendant wants to rely on its policies to enjoy immunity, the plaintiff can still rely on ACL to lodge a strong case and even win in the court. The damages and losses of the cloths signify that the defendant was not serving the best interest of the client. It implies that it was mainly interested in profit-optimization at the expense of delivering quality services to the client. ACL is, therefore, appropriate for this case since it can be used to prove that the company failed to abide by the conditions for a mandatory warranty to which all clients are entitled. This, therefore, implies that the negligence case can be strong if litigated using the ACL. The company had violated the principles of the ACL, so, it should be compelled to compensate Adonis for all the damages suffered. The compensation should cover all the losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The case laws which can be applicable here are Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) and Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947). The court should consider using these case laws because they are relevant to this matter.