Assignment Task 3 –

Individual Written Assignment

Student Name Ngo Hoang Giang

Student ID s3756734

Course Name Commercial Law

Course Code LAW2447

Lecturer Do Thi Huong Nhu

Page|1
RMIT University Vietnam
 Problem Solving Question
Ria v Maya
I. Legal Issues
Crucial legal issue:
Whether or not there was an enforceable contract between Maya and Ria on October
27 when Maya agreed to pay an additional $2,000 for Ria to hire more people to fix
the leak in Maya’s kitchen provided that they had already had a contact of $35,000 for
Ria to redesign and redecorate Maya’s house.
Subordinate legal issues:
- Issue 1: Whether there was an agreement between Maya and Ria when Ria charged an
additional $2,000.
- Issue 2: Whether there was a sufficient consideration between Ria and Maya when
Ria charged an additional $2,000.
- Issue 3: Whether there was an intention to be bound between Ria and Maya when Ria
charged an additional $2000.
II. Legal Rules
- Elements of an Agreement (Smith v Hughes1):
 Rules of Offer:
o Offer must be communicated (R v Clarke2).
o Offer must be clear and complete (Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd
v Canon Finance Australian Ltd3).
 Rules of Acceptance:
o Acceptance must be communicated (Felthouse v Bindley4).
o Acceptance must be clear and certain (Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston5).
- Rules of Consideration: A duty imposed by contract (Stilk v Myrick6).
- Intention to be bound: Agreement made in Business Context (Rose & Frank Co v
JR7).
1
Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597
2
R v Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227
3
Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australian Ltd [2006] VSC 42
4
Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107
5
Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] 1 AC 251
6
Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317
7
Rose & Frank Co v JR
Page|2
RMIT University Vietnam
III. Application
- Issue 1:
Ria was an offeror because she charged an additional $2,000 to fix Maya’s house. Besides,
Maya received the offer; thus, she was offeree. Since Ria told Maya about the solution of
problem, the offer was communicated. Moreover, Ria said she need to hire more people to
complete the work with the leak in the kitchen of Maya’s house on time and the cost would
increase by $2,000; therefore, the offer was clear and complete. For acceptance, Maya said
that she would pay the extra $2,000 for Ria to complete the work on time because she needed
a beautiful house for the party; therefore, the acceptance was clearly and certainly
communicated. As a result, there was an agreement between Maya and Ria.
- Issue 2:
In the case, Maya had a house done on time (paid by Ria) and Ria had an additional $2,000
(paid by Maya). However, the duty of fixing Maya’s house has been already imposed by the
previous contract. Consequently, the consideration between Ria and Maya was insufficient.
- Issue 3:
The agreement between Maya and Ria made in the business context was intended to be
binding. That means they created legal relations.
IV. Conclusion
One out of three main elements of forming a contract was lack because there was insufficient
consideration between Ria and Maya. Hence, there was not an enforceable contract between
Ria and Maya on October 27. Maya won the case and Ria could not sue Maya for not paying
her the extra money.

Ria v Andrew
I. Legal Issues
Crucial legal issue:
Whether or not there was an enforceable contract between Ria and Andrew on
October 21 when Ria decided to buy the curtains No. 30679 from “Fan Curtains”.
Subordinate legal issues:
- Issue 1: Whether there was an agreement between Ria and Andrew when Ria choose
the curtains.
- Issue 2: Whether there was a consideration between Ria and Maya when Ria choose
the curtains.

Page|3
RMIT University Vietnam
 - Issue 3: Whether there was an intention to be bound between Ria and Maya when Ria
choose the curtains.
II. Legal Rules
- Elements of an Agreement (Smith v Hughes1):
 Rules of Offer:
o Offer must be communicated (R v Clarke2).
o Offer must be clear and complete (Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd
v Canon Finance Australian Ltd3).
 Rules of Acceptance:
o Postal Rule (Adams v Lindsell8).
- Rules of Consideration: Consideration must be sufficient (Biotechnology Australia
Pty Ltd v Pace9).
- Intention to be bound: Agreement made in Business Context (Rose & Frank Co v
JR7).
III. Application
- Issue 1:
Ria sent Andrew an offer mail; thus, Ria was offeror. And Andrew was the offeree since he
received the mail from Ria. The mail was written that Ria chose the curtains No. 30679 for
the entire main floor and wanted them all finished in two weeks; hence, the offer was clear
and complete. The offer was communicated when Andrew received the mail from Ria. On
October 28, Ria received an invoice of the curtains sent from Andrew, but on November 3,
she just realized that invoice only after the curtains of “Fan Curtains” was sent to her.
According to postal rule, the acceptance of Andrew was effective at the time the invoice was
sent, on October 28 or before that day. As a result, there was an agreement between Ria and
Andrew.
- Issue 2:
In this case, Ria had the curtains No. 30679 delivered on time (paid by Andrew) and Andrew
had the payment of the curtains (paid by Ria); hence, there was a sufficient consideration
between Ria and Andrew.
- Issue 3:

8
Adams v Lindsell 106 ER 250
9
Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace [1988] 15 NSWLR 130
Page|4
RMIT University Vietnam
The agreement between Ria and Andrew made in the business context was intended to be
binding. Thus, they created legal relations.
IV. Conclusion
To conclude, three main elements of forming a contract appeared; hence, there was an
enforceable contract between Ria and Andrew on October 21. Andrew could prevail and sue
Ria for owing him the money for the curtains that he made and delivered on time.

Maya v Duyen
I. Legal Issue
Crucial legal issue:
Whether or not there was a breach of contract between Duyen and Maya when Duyen
failed to provide fish-free food and staff cleaning up Maya’s garden for the party on
November 24.
Subordinate legal issues:
Whether there were express terms in the written contract between Duyen and Maya
made on November 17.
II. Legal Rules
- Express term:
 A verbal statement incorporated into a written contract will be a term if reasonable
notice of statement was given to other party (Causer v Browne10 [1952] VLR 1)
before the contract was formed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking11; Olley v
Marlborough Court Hotel12).
 If the statement is included in a contractual document, the reasonable notice of the
outside statement will be given to other party.
- Exception of Parol evidence rule: If the outside evidence is very important to the
agreement then it will be a term of the contract (Van de Esschert v Chappell13).
III. Application
Maya required Duyen to provide non fish-based food and cleaning staff through the phone
call and mail was before the contract was form and these requests were not mentioned in the
written contract; therefore, they were the outside statements. According to express term,

10
Causer v Browne [1952] VLR 1
11
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585
12
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532 Ltd
13
Van de Esschert v Chappell [1960]
Page|5
RMIT University Vietnam
verbal statement of Maya was incorporated into the contract because the reasonable notice
given to Duyen before the contract was formed. Moreover, according to the exception of
parol evidence rule, the demand of Maya was very important to the agreement as her mother
had serious allergy to fish. Besides, the mail that Maya sent Duyen was a contractual
document; so, Duyen received the reasonable notice. As a result, the requirements of Maya
were terms of the contract and they were had to be added into the written contract.
IV. Conclusion
To conclude, Duyen breached the contract between her and Maya since Duyen failed to
perform the written contract as the agreement on the phone call and mail and do the
requirements in that contract. Consequently, Maya could prevail and sue Duyen for the
medical bills of Maya’s mother and making Maya to hire a professional cleaner by herself.

Case Note Question

I. Legal Issues
Crucial legal issues:
- Issue 1: Whether Motorhomes Pty Ltd & Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd breached any
consumer guarantee under ACL when the caravan purchased by Paul Becke was
falling apart after a short time of using.
- Issue 2: Whether Paul Becke could receive remedies from Motorhomes Pty Ltd &
Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd when the caravan purchased by Paul Becke was falling
apart after a short time of using.
Subordinate legal issue:
Issue 3: Whether there was a consumer goods contract between Motorhomes Pty Ltd
& Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd and Paul Becke.
II. Legal rules
- Requirements of Consumers goods contracts (section 23[3]14):
 Section 215:
o A business supplies a good to a consumer which is a physical or tangible product, not
a service.
o The business is in trade or commerce with supplying the good as part of its ongoing
business.

14
Section 23[3] of Australian Consumer Law
15
Section 2 of Australian Consumer Law
Page|6
RMIT University Vietnam
  The good is a consumer good (section 316) when:
o The price is $40,000 or less.
o Or, the good is ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use.
o Or, the good is a vehicle or trailer.
- The goods must be of acceptable quality (section 5417) if they:
 Do all the things that goods are commonly used for.
 Are acceptable in appearance and finish.
 Are safe, durable, and free from defects.
- Minor failure:
 If there is minor failure, the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure
within a reasonable time such as repairing the goods, replacing the goods, or
providing a refund (section 25918).
 If the supplier does not do something within a reasonable time, the consumer can
reject the goods, require a refund, and/or sue the business before the court to recover
any reasonable loss (section 259[1]19, [2]20; section 26121).
- Major failure: If the failure is a major, the consumer should immediately reject the
goods, require a refund, and/or sue the supplier to recover any reasonable loss
(Section 259[3]22, [4]23).
III. Application
- Issue 3:
The Tribunal stated that the plaintiff was a consumer and the caravan was utilized for private
purpose of Becke; subsequently, this contract was a consumer good contract. I will support
this statement by using section 3 and section 2 of ACL. The caravan was a vehicle and was
for Paul Becke’s private use; thus, the caravan is a consumer good. Besides, at the time of
forming the contract on 6 January 2014, the sellers provided a tangible product and they were
in trade business. Consequently, the contract between Motorhomes Pty Ltd & Jayco
Corporation Pty Ltd and Paul Becke was a consumer good contract.
16
Section 3 of Australian Consumer Law
17
Section 54 of Australian Consumer Law
18
Section 259 of Australian Consumer Law
19
Ibid [1]
20
Ibid [2]
21
Section 261 of Australian Consumer Law
22
Section 259[3] of Australian Consumer Law
23
Ibid [4]
Page|7
RMIT University Vietnam
 - Issue 1:
According to the judges’ decision, the caravan was not finished and free from detects. In my
point of view, the section 54 will be used to enhance the Tribunal. There were the defects of
this caravan because the issues with the shower, awning and interior trim were not the results
of coastal environment. In any case, after being purchased, the problems of the caravan
showed up, for example, the rusting of interior items and the issue with the cupboards. These
issues indicated that there was no effort of finishing the car from the defendants and the
caravan was not acceptable in appearance and finish. Moreover, the issue 3 proved the
existence of the consumer goods contract; hence, Motorhomes Pty Ltd & Jayco Corporation
Pty Ltd breached consumer guarantee in section 54 to Paul Becke.

- Issue 2:
According to section 259, I fully concur with the declaration of the judges that the problems
of the caravan could not be remedied. When Becke found the problem of caravan, he did not
directly reject the caravan and sue the firm to recover his loss; therefore, there was no major
failure of the carvan in section 259 (3) and (4) of ACL. Instead of rejecting the product of the
firm, Paul Becke required the organization to fix and substitute for the cracked items of the
caravan in six times in the warranty time frame. Henceforth, there was minor failure in this
case. Consiquently, Paul Becke could not get any remedies of the caravan from Motorhomes
Pty Ltd & Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd.

IV. Conclusion
After analyzing this case, I realized that Motorhomes Pty Ltd & Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd
ruptured the consumer guarantee to Paul Becke and Paul Becke, the plaintiff, could not
receive any remedies from the defendants. That implies there was nobody can prevail, and the
decision of the Tribunal was correct.

Page|8
RMIT University Vietnam