Law enterprises – week 4 tutorial questions

1. Graham wishing to impress his friend Stacey, goes with Stacey to an antique shop. He
inspects an antique dining table and asks the shop assistant the price. The shop assistant
tells him that the price is $5,000. Graham says to the shop assistant that he will take it and
gives his address to the shop assistant to deliver it to his home. Payment will be on
delivery. When the table arrives, Graham telephones the shop and tells the shop assistant
that he was only pretending to buy the table and that he had no intention of going
through with the purchase. The shop assistant tells him that Graham must pay for the
table. Is there a binding contract between Graham and the shop? Discuss this situation
using case law to support any argument you may make.

there is an implied contract, but as there was no consideration paid, that is no deposit paid, then the
contract is unenforceable. However, there may be an additional claim of misleading and deceptive
conduct by the party which the cost of the transport of the relevant table could be charged against
that individual under the Australian consumer law, competition and consumer act, but this would
need to be carefully assessed against the conduct in question. The intention is graham saying he
wants to buy the table in the shop. Graham did not pay any deposit he would be allowed to refuse
unless the table was delivered and placed in his home, he does not have the right to refuse. The
consideration is the money for the table. The agreement was graham would pay upon delivery.

2. Brendan enters the Clayton Books store intending to buy a copy of a book called ‘The
Tactical Use of Elephants in Warfare by the Ancient Greeks and Romans’ which he has
seen in the window. When he asks Carla, the shop assistant, she tells him that she has sold
all the copies of the book and that even the copy in the window has already been sold. She
suggests that Brendan might find something similar in the history section in the back of
the shop. Brendan looks through the shelves and finds a copy of the exact same book
which was in the window and which he wishes to own. He takes it to Carla with the correct
money, but she still refuses to sell him the book. Using Contract law principles only discuss
whether Carla was legally entitled to refuse to sell the book.

Using all the essential principles of a contract, offer, agreement, intention and consideration. Was
there an offer, the book was in the window, it is an invitation to treat cause it’s a goods displayed in
the window. He is requesting information to Carla about the book as he approached Carla, he is
making an offer. Brendan has made a offer to buy the book in the window, Carla’s response was
rejection as all the copies were sold. She suggests there is a similar copy of the book in the history
section, telling him to browse the history section. Brendan brings the exact copy to the counter with
the exact money offering to buy the book, Carla’s offer was rejection so no agreement, without an
agreement there is no contract, so Carla is legally allowed to not sell the book, the book could’ve
been already ordered e.g. online. Consideration is the book for the money. Intention is Brendan
wanted to buy the book showing interest to buy it and showing money. If there was an agreement
on Carla’s end then she would not be legally entitled to sell the book.

3. Andrew and Susan married in 2015 and lived together until they separated in 2018. After
12 months of living apart, they came to an agreement in relation to maintenance and
property matters. The agreement was that Susan would pay Andrew $250,000 for his
interest in their matrimonial home, and that Andrew would pay Susan $1000 per month to
contribute to the mortgage payments on this home. Susan paid to Andrew $250,000 but
Andrew refuses to make maintenance payments to Susan. Andrew argues that their
 agreement is not enforceable because it was made in a domestic context. Is Andrew
correct? Explain your answer and indicate relevant authority where appropriate.

This question Is only regarding one principle, intention, they’re separated there is no more
relation anymore, they did negotiate she transferred him 250000 to buy his side of the house
and he was meant to pay monthly instalments as part of negotiation, the courts would find
intention and would find Andrew wrong, the parties had the necessary intent.

4. (a) Carbord Ltd (C) is a building materials wholesaler. On Monday morning C received a
letter containing an order from a regular customer, Home Interiors Ltd (HI), ordering a
certain number of gyprock sheets, with measurements, to be delivered to an address in
Sydney the following Monday. C immediately posted its confirmation that the order was
accepted. This letter would have ordinarily taken 2 days to reach HI’s place of business
but, due to a strike affecting Australia Post, the letter was not delivered until Friday
afternoon. On Friday morning, having not heard from C, HI, believing C were not able to
supply the materials, ordered the same materials from an alternative wholesaler. HI sent a
fax on Friday afternoon, before the mail was delivered, to C cancelling the order. HI is now
refusing to accept the gyprock sheets from C, or pay for them. Advise Carbord Ltd.

The offer was received Monday morning, was the offer accepted? There was confirmation so
acceptance. The postal acceptance rule is counted from the moment the letter was posted. The
courts would conclude there is intention. The consideration is cardboard to supply gyprock sheets
and HI was meant to pay

(b) How would your answer change if the order had been received by email on Monday morning
and the return email confirming said order was slow to reach HI due to a hacking incident to HI’s
server? The confirmation email entered HI’s server on Tuesday morning, but HI had faxed a
cancellation of the order at 4:15 pm the previous day, Monday.

With common law acceptance must be communicated,