Contract Law In Reletaion To Paulo - Jace - Andy And Build.Co Pty

Question: Describe about the Contract Law In Reletaion To Paulo, Jace, Andy And Build.Co Pty. Answer: Introduction Paulo, Andy and Jace are in conflict because of the work that Paulo and Jace did for the company belonging to Andy. Paulo felt aggrieved because of the losses that he made. That is losing his tool of trade and failure to get compensation for the work he did for the company belonging to Andy. The company was called, Build.co Pty Ltd. To know his rights and obligations under the law, Paulo must know whether he had a contractual relation with Jace, Andy and Build.co Pty Ltd. Paulo Rights and Obligations under the law of contract in relation to Andy Paulo and Andy did not have any contractual relationships. This is because there was no acceptance. For a contract to be enforceable, the element of acceptance must exist. This is a principle that was established in R v Clarke (1927), where the court ruled that, when an offer is made, there can either be acceptance or rejection[1]. Rejection of the offer automatically leads to the termination of the offer. In R v Clarke, the court made a ruling that acceptance is only permissible to an individual whom the offer was made. The offer was made to Andy, and he did not accept it. Andys statement was that, the amount quoted was too high, and hell get back to him. Andy went silence for three months after the offer was made. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) is a leading case that talks about the notion of silence in a contractual relationship[2]. In this case, the judges made a ruling that for acceptance to exist, it must be communicated clearly. Therefore, acceptance cannot be imposed in a contractual negotiation, because of the silence of one party. An offer can also be rejected by a lapse of time. In this case, Andy did not communicate for three months, and upon communication, it was not Andy but his company. Routledge v Mckay(1954) explains that a contract can be terminated by the lapse of time[3]. From this behavior by Andy, the courts can ascertain beyond any reasonable doubt, that he did not accept the offer. The statute of Upper County District v Australian Chilling (1968) provides guidance on how to interpret uncertain behavior and terms[4]. In this case, the court made a ruling that if the behavior of a party can be ascertained beyond doubt, then, the court will recognize such a behavior. Therefore, Paulo did not have any rights and obligations under the law of contract, in relation to Andy. Paulo Rights and Obligations under the law of contract in relation to co Pty Ltd Paulo had a contract with Build.co Pty Ltd. The 2001 Corporations Act ss 128,129 explain that anybody who is dealing with the company has to make assumptions, regarding the company under consideration[5]. These assumptions include, that the company complies with all the rules of its constitution, the officials and directors of the company are dully appointed and authorized to act on behalf of the company, and the officers of the company are properly performing their functions. In this case, Naomi called Paulo, informing her of the need of Paulo working on the assignment that Andy wanted to give him. Under the 2001 Corporations Act, Paulo has a legal right to assume that Naomi is carrying out the functions that Build. Co Pty Ltd has delegated to her. The new agreement between Build.co Pty Ltd was a partly written and a partly oral contract. This is because the consideration agreed was about $30,000 while other terms and conditions were in writing. The courts normally enforce the terms of a contract that are written, and it will not admit any other evidence aimed at modifying the contract. This is a principle established in the Mercantile Bank of Sidney v Taylor (1891)[6].However, there is an exception to this rule and the principles are established in Van den Esschert v Chappell (1960)[7]. In this case, the court recognized that an oral contract can be used to modify a written contract, if it is clear to all parties that the written contract does not constitute the whole agreement. Therefore, Paulo can claim damages against Build.co Pty Ltd. However, he can only claim about $30,000, because that was the agreed amount. Paulo Rights and Obligations under the law of contract in relation to Jace The contractual relationship between Paulo and Jace is called collateral contract. In Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products (1951), the court made a ruling that a collateral contract exists when one party, engages another party to contractual relationship, based on another existing agreement[8]. De Lassalle v Guildford (1901) establishes the requirements of a collateral contract[9]. The law denotes that for a collateral contract to exist, there must be an intention to create a binding legal relationship between the parties to the contract, and the third party must be entering into the contract based on the knowledge that the contract is dependent on a main contract. All these conditions were established in the relationship between Paulo and Jace. Hence, there was a contractual relationship between the two. In this case, all that Paulo owe to Jace are the labor charges. The charges are $10,000, and this is what they agreed upon. This is a principle established in Mercantile Bank of Sidney v Taylor (1891) where the plaintiff can only recover damages, worth the amount of consideration agreed in the contract. Therefore, Jace has to return the tools he confiscated from Paulo. Conclusion Finally, Paulo did not have a contractual relationship with Andy, because Andy did not accept the offer provided by Paulo. However, Paulo had a contract with Build. Co. Pty Co; hence, he could claim damages against the company. He also had a contract with Jace, but he had to pay him $ 10,000. Jace did not have a right to claim damages for his tool, because that was not in the agreement. Bibilography: Cases De Lassalle v Guildford (1901) 215 KB (1901) Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER (1862) Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor (1891) 12 LR (NSW) (1891) R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR (1927) Routledge v McKay (1954) 1 ER (1954) Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products (1951) 471 KB (1951) upper hunter county district v australian chilling freezing (1968) 118 HCA (1968) Van den Esschert v Chappell (1960) 116 WAR (1960) Legislation The Corporations Act 2001 ss 128,129