Part A Question 1 Principle or issue of law The principle of Law underlying this case is that advertisement are taken to be invitations to treat and thus the person advertising is not compelled to sell to every customer. Rules of Law An agreement is legally enforceable if the parties intend to be legally bound at the time the agreement is made. Taking this into consideration, the objective assessment of the circumstances in which both parties made an agreement needs to be undertaken. Basing the argument on the law of contract, Spicy Chickens advertisement can be considered to be an invitation to treat. With reference to the law of contract on advertisement of goods, then it is clear that an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement was addressed. Arguing in this manner it can be claimed that both parties where not bound legally at the time when the statement was meant. There was no binding offer between the parties and therefore this cannot be taken to form a contract (Wong 2005). This can be well illustrated by the case Partridge v Crittenden [1968]. In the case Partridge v Crittenden, appellant had advertised to sell wild birds, the defendant went to buy the birds but the plaintiff was unwilling to sell the birds. It was held that the fact that the partridge had advertised to sell the birds, there was no intention to offer the for sell. This is to mean that the agreement was not legally enforceable and thus their wasn’t contract formed because the advertisement was an invitation to treat (Lambiris 2012). Furthermore, the fact that the agreement was not written down shows clearly that it was not legally enforceable basing argument that the two parties had no intend to be legally enforceable at the time of their agreement. If their existed any intend for the agreement to bound, then the two parties could have written down the terms of their agreements and sign in their names. Although implied terms forms a binding contract, expressed terms is the best form of contract terms where a party can prove that the contract was formed. Thus for this case a contract was not formed giving Spicy Chicken a way out to claim that the advertisement was an invitation to treat. Their aim was to capture a large market for its goods and that was right (Wong 2005). An agreement in the law of contract becomes legally enforceable if the parties intended to be legally bound when the agreement was made. Taking this into a count then the context of Joel and Nicole and Sophie is legally enforceable. The presence of rental payment agreement which both parties narrowed to clearly shows that this issue was not a reduced rate for friends. The statement of the length of stay and the amount for every week is an indication that the contract was legally binding for both parties. However, it can be argued that Spicy Chickens where serious with the offer because they bought the gold car in honor of whoever would get the scratch ticket. This is a clear indication that the offer was legally binding and was it not for the error posed by Bloc printers they were ready to owner the award. Arguing from this point of view, then Steve and Max can claim that the declaration made by Spicy chicken that the transaction was null and void came late and therefore they deserve the award. In such a case, the law of contract provides that once a contract has been made then it cannot be revoked. Thus Steve and Max where legally justifiable to be given the award. This can be well understood from the case Carlill v Carbolic smoke Ball Company (1893) where by the smoke Ball Company had promised via advertisement that it would pay anyone who used their product in the prescribed manner and caught influenza £100 adding that it had deposited £1000 for the same. Carlill used their products as prescribed and caught influenza when he went for the prize the company declined. It was held that the company was certainly to pay for the damage since the amounted to offer (Lambiris 2011).
Spicy chicken and Bloc Printers went into a deep discussion in front of lawyers which saw Bloc Printers promise that it will ensure that all materials would be proof read before delivery to ensure that there are no errors. This is to imply that their existed an intention to be legally bound between the two parties at the time the agreement arrangements were made. As a result, the agreements are therefore legally enforceable and a contract was formed between the two parties. With reference to presumption for commercial agreements, parties have an intention to be legally bound unless the parties they express that they don’t want to be bound. This is to say that there is nowhere expressed that the two parties had no intention to be legally bound. In such as a case it will be presumed that this parties where legally bound and thus a contract was formed. Furthermore, since the arrangement for the agreement between the both parties was made in presence of lawyers, then it shows that offer and acceptance prevailed. This is to show that Spicy Chicken stood as the offerer and Bloc Printers was the offeree. It can be presumed that this agreement was legally binding and thus Bloc Printers had no other options to provide other than delivering services as per agreement. Once a contract is formed basing arguments that an offer was meant and a certain party accepted, then the terms can never be revoked. This can be well elaborated by referring to the case in Trentham v Luxfer (1993). In the case Trentham v Luxfer, T built industrial units and contracted the windows to L. L did the work and was paid later T claimed for damages from L following defects in the windows. L argued that there was no matching offer and acceptance and that no contract was formed. The court held that there was a course of dealing between the parties which led to a binding contract. L was summoned to pay the damages (Lambiris 2012). Moreover, the duration to which the contract was to hold was communicated where by the parties agreed that the contract was to take three years. This is an implication that a contract existed and the acceptance was also communicated. Once an acceptance has been made for an offer, then the agreement become legally enforceable and a contract is formed. In this state, the acceptance cannot be revoked and if it happens then a party is liable for breach of contract. Bloc printers accepted the offer to deliver service to Spicy Chicken for three years. Therefore, it ought to adhere to the terms of the contract until the duration was over (Koffman et al 2010). Bloc printers cannot rely on exclusion clause although there was a breach of contract. Existence of conditions in the agreement further makes the arrangement legally bidding. The conditions were Bloc Printers to ensure all reasonable care is taken so that all materials would be delivered without errors. Due failure of Bloc Printers to deliver services with respect to the terms and conditions of the contract, it led to damages on the part of Spicy Chicken. Since the agreements are legally enforceable then Bloc Printers will be obliged to pay this damages and remedies. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that Spicy Chickens and Bloc Printers agreement is legally bound in a contract because their existed an intention to be legally enforceable at the time when the arrangements were made. Thus a contract was formed between the two parties and therefore Spicy chicken can enforce the agreement in order to receive the payments for the damages caused by Bloc Printers. Part B Explain how to determine if a judge from a lower court has to follow the decision made by a judge in a higher court in Australia. It is clear from the Judiciary of Australia under the court hierarchy; lower courts have the duty to follow the decisions made by the high court. According to the same Judiciary, it is clear that a decision from high court is said to be binding on the lower court. This is referred to as a precedent (Campbell 2012). However, a decision from the same high court may not be binding to the lower courts. For example, if a judge from a high court makes a decision binding on the district and local courts, this may be become persuasive in another state if there has been no decision on particular area of law by the state’s own high court. This is to say that a judge from a lower court has to follow the decisions provided by his counterpart at high court (Barker 2000).
Reference
Barker, David. Essential Australian Law. London: Routledge Cavendish Australia, 2000.
Bridge, M. G.. The international sale of goods law and practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Campbell, Enid Mona, and H. P. Lee. The Australian judiciary. 2nd ed. Cambridge [UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Dolzer, Rudolf, and Christoph Schreuer. Principles of international investment law. Oxford: Oxford Univerrity Press, 2008.
Emerson, Robert W.. Business law. 4th ed. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron's, 2004.
Keenan, Denis J., and Sarah Riches. Business law. 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2007.
Koffman, Laurence, and Elizabeth Macdonald. The law of contract. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Lambiris, Michael A.. First principles of business law. 2011 ed. Sydney: CCH Australia, 2011.
Lambiris, Michael A.. First principles of business law: interactive tutorials & source book. 2012 ed. Sydney, N.S.W.: CCH Australia, 2012.
Wong, Eleanor. Invitation to treat: the Eleanor Wong trilogy. Singapore: Firstfruits, 2005.
