Contract Law Text - Cases - and Materials System

Question: Discuss about the Contract Law for Text, Cases, and Materials System. Answer: Introduction: From the given scenario, it has been cleared that Rajeev has breached the contract with Paul as he has signed the registration papers of the car but due to some circumstances not able to conclude the purchase of the car. According to the Australian corporation act, 2001, the case comes under the anticipatory contractual breach. The Anticipatory contractual breach is occurs when promisor is completely disagrees or refuses to perform his obligations within the due date as promised by him (Corones, 2014). It is actually a declaration made by the other party to show his intentions of not performing his obligations according to the contract formed with the main party. This actually represents contracts destruction at the premature stage that is contracts repudiation before the performances due date. From the above statements, it is cleared that Paul has two options to perform against Rajeev under the Australian corporation act, 2001. First, Paul can treat the entire conduct under the concept of discharged and accordingly can take immediate actions to ask for compensatory damages from Rajeev. Second, Paul can treat the entire contract under operative and accordingly can wait for response from Rajeev to perform his obligations to purchase his car. Paul can demand his compensation charges according to essence time under the termination of the contract according to Australian corporation act, 2001 (Latimer, 2016). According to the concept of essence time, contracts performance needs to be performed in due time or within the implied terms and if not performed in that due date, then the main party has the legal right to terminate the contract without considering the opposite partys perceptions. This also shows that if the opposite party is not able to perform their obligations in the specified time, then the main party has legal right to act according to the Australian corporation act, 2001. The case between Foran and Wight in 1989 under section HCA 51 also resembles the same case as given in the above scenario. The following scenario can also be explained with the help of Frustrated Contracts act in 1978 by NSW government. According to this if promisor after signing certain documents and after some time not shows any intentions to perform the contract can be sued according to the Frustrated Contracts act in 1978 which makes Paul liable to claim compensatory charges from Rajeev under the section 7(2) of frustrated contracts act (Bently and Sherman, 2014). The contract may also be terminated according to lapsed time as Rajeev has not showed his intention to purchase Pauls car after passage of time. Paul can ask for nominal charges from Rajeev due to breach of contract. According to this concept of nominal charges, plaintiff (Paul) is liable to demand charges from defendant (Rajeev). These actually are the damages which are used to prove the fact that defendant has breached the contract but due to that breached contract, plaintiff has not suffered any losses (Corones, 2014). This also shows that there was no fault of Paul in the entire scenario. The case occurs between Charter and Sullivan in 1957 is representing the same concept which is given in the case problem. From the given scenario, it has been cleared that the above case basically belongs where Bhanu can resolve the matter with Rajeev under the remedy of rescission. As Rajeev had taken the equity in terms of paintings under the lease, he is the responsible person to pay the damages in case any damages or accidents may be happened with the paintings what he has leased from Bhanu. According to Australian corporation act, 2001, rescission comes under the remedied of common Australian laws (McKendrick, 2014). This basically means to self help the innocent party who has suffered the losses. According to these remedy, the innocent party can opt to terminate the agreement with the defaulter party. This mainly belongs to equity remedy where court order is required which is basically discretionary in nature that allows injured party for restoration or aside of the main contract into its pre contractual position. Under the 2nd schedule of competition and consumer act in 2010, the rescission remedies are available on breaching the guarantee on major basis or failure to comply comes under non-major basis. According to consumer law of Australia, the main party can reject to accept the goods in writing by the notice under the guarantee breached by the accused party. As from the case, it is evident that the paintings will never be again repaired, and then the case comes under major basis for breaching the guarantee (Gibson, 2012). Further, Bhanu can give some time to Rajeev for repairing the damaged paintings or can ask for the damages under the remedies. But if Rajeev fails to repair or give reasonable costs on the damages then under section 259(2) b of competition and consumer act in 2010, Bhanu can demand for the damages or ultimately can terminate the contract with Rajeev. Under section 260 of competition and consumer act in 2010, the above case comes under major failure as well as the guarantee breached by Rajeev cannot also be remedied (McKendrick, 2014). According to this Bhanu can notifies to Rajeev that he is rejecting the paintings or can recover the required compensation if any reduction in value of paintings occurs on paying or payable prices for the paintings. Further, Bhanu can also take legal action against Rajeev so that can recover his damages as occurs due to damage of paintings suffered because at the same time, Rajeev failed to comply the guarantee as he assured on protecting the value of paintings. The cases between Alati and Kruger in 1995, Vadasz and Pioneer concrete in 1995 and Phillips and Brooks are also comes under the same scenario as discussed with the case given in the problem (Poole, 2016). In all the cases, the accused party was given order to pay the remedies on the damages or losses happened to the innocent party. Bhanu will not be able to demand for remedies under rescission if contracts cannot be stored to its original position. Bhanu if continues to do transactions with Rajeev or if conducts becomes unconscionable in that cases, Bhanu cannot resolve the issue under the remedy of rescission. From the given scenario, it has been cleared that Shane has breached the contract with Paul as he has signed the contracts to pay the required amount for house within six months to Rajeev. But due to some conditions, Shane will not be able to continue with the contract. But according to the Australian corporation act, 2001, the above case comes under the anticipatory contractual breach (Virgo, 2015). According to law, Bhanu can enforce appropriate remedies for the loss or can also ignore the contractual breach and can take actions against the performance of Rajeev. The case between Foran and Wight in 1989 comes under the same scenario as discussed in the problem. Under the anticipatory contractual breach, Bhanu has the right to continue with the contract or can also terminate the contract with Shane. The damages or injunction will only be appropriate if Bhanu will decide to terminate the contract with Shane. As from the given scenario, it is cleared that Shane is the person responsible for breaching the contract and according to Australian corporation act, 2001, Bhanu can ask for the damages instead of injunction for suing of breaching the contract (Pentony et al, 2013). The damages can be on the basis of conditions breaching or warranty breaching. Under the section 243 of Australian corporation act, 2001, Bhanu can ask for damages from Shane. Damages will be more preferable in the following scenario as this enables the plaintiff to get monetary compensation or charges from the accused party for breaching the contract. The main purpose of this remedy is not to punish the accused party but to put the innocent party in such position that would make them in the financial position if the original contract will be appropriately performed (Gullifer and Payne, 2015). The case between Alexander and Credit Corporation of Cambridge in 1987 indicates the same scenario where accused was sued to pay the damages to the innocent part for breaching the contract before the completion of the original contract. Injunction is type of equitable remedy which is not the appropriate remedy for the following scenario. This is mainly order from the courts which is discretionary in nature. This is not applicable in the case if damages are more significant for the case. This remedy may be prohibitive in nature as prevents contractual breach (Andrews, 2015). This also makes the contract as mandatory which requires some obligations needs to be performed by the accused party during the contracts. The case between Lumley and Wagner in 1852 describes the same scenario where damages are more appropriate as compared to the injunctions on breaching the contracts. From the given scenario, it is evident that restitution is not the appropriate remedy for contractual breach in the following case. As there was a written contract between Rajeev and Shane which indicates that principles of remedy that is restitution is not applicable in the present case. The principle of this just includes preventing unjust enrichment in the present case. This remedy is not based on the implied promises as well as the type of quasi contracts (Moens and Trone, 2010). As from the Australian corporation act, 2001, it is evident that when the two parties are in the contracts then any remedies on breaching the contract will be entirely based on the claim for the compensation and damages. However, when parties have no legal rights for recovering their money or obtaining some compensation in terms of non monetary benefits when are in some contracts, then the remedy like restitution will be more significant and vital to use to give more effectiveness to such cases. The case between Pavey and Matthews with Paul in 1987 interprets the same thing that if the parties are in some sort of contract then they can ask for remedy in form of compensation or damages for breaching the contracts (Pentony et al, 2013). However, if the parties are not in any kind of contract or legal obligations, then they can use restitutions principles to get some benefits for breaching the contacts from the accused parties. References: Andrews, N. (2015) Contract law.UK: Cambridge University Press. Bently, L. and Sherman, B. (2014) Intellectual property law. USA: Oxford University Press. Corones, S. (2014) Competition law in Australia. Australia: Thomson Reuters Limited. Gibson, A. (2012) Australian Commercial Law. Australia: Pearson. Gullifer, L. and Payne, J. (2015) Corporate finance law: principles and policy. UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Latimer, P. (2016) Australian Business Law. Australia: Oxford University Press. McKendrick, E. (2014) Contract law: text, cases, and materials. UK: Oxford University Press. Moens, G. and Trone, J. (2010) Commercial law of the European Union (Vol. 4).UK: Springer Science Business Media. Pentony, B., Graw, S., Parker, D. and Whitford, K. (2013) Understanding Business law. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Poole, J. (2016) Textbook on contract law.UK: Oxford University Press. Virgo, G. (2015) Principles of the Law of Restitution.USA: Oxford University Press.