1. Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls.

When
she
opened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In
1999
she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the
point
where she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one
night at
the kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep the
business going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest
daughter
and aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she would
receive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that
she
would give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the
proceeds.
Advise Emily.
2. Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into
an
arrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front- and backyards of the
family property mowed, and he will do a bit to keep the gardens looking tidy. In
return,
his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously
used a
garden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare
property,
and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richards father
tells him
that he cant afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the
work
for nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property;
besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging. Advise Richard.
3. Jenny received a circular from Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon advertising
massages and
manicures for $10. Realising that this was an exceptionally good deal, but not
surprised
because she knew that they had only just opened and were running a number of
good
opening specials, she rang and made a booking. When Jenny arrived at the salon she
was
told that there had been a mistake on the circular and it should have said $100. The
manager of the salon explained that this was still a good price because normally a
massage and manicure would have cost $150. Jenny was furious, as it had taken her
30
minutes to get to the shop by car and if she had known it would cost $100, she
would
never have made the booking. Advise Jenny. Would your advice have been any
different if
Jenny had the massage and manicure before being told that the cost was $100?
Would

she have to pay the full price?

4. Bruce, while he was so drunk that he didnt know what he was doing, bid
successfully at
an auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Bruce
didnt
know what he was doing. However, after Bruce sobered up he confirmed the
contract
with the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Bruce
be bound your assignment
SOLUTION
Issues: There was an oral agreement between Margret and Emily but at the time of
entering into agreement Emily was a minor i.e. under the age of 18 years. Basically
there are two issues involved in it, first whether Emily can confirm the agreement
between them as a contract after attaining majority? Second whether Emily has the
right to bind Margret under the agreement between them.
Law: A contract with a Minor can be valid, void or voidable at the option of the minor.
[Business Law, 2009] The contract entered by the minor for the benefits of service
paid by him is a valid contract. A minor has a right to repudiate contract after
attaining the age of majority and escape from the liability or can reaffirm that.
Application: Here, Margaret agreed to give Emily the unsold stocks against the
service provided by her but at the time of retirement she announces to give the
unsold stocks in charity. Emily can make Margret to comply with the terms of
agreement as it was a legally enforceable agreement. It is only Emily who can make
the contract void after attaining the age of majority. But this option can be
exercised by her only during her minority once she attained the age of majority.
Once she does nothing during her minority to repudiate the contract, she can not
make it void after that. [Mance, 2011]
Conclusion: Therefore in this situation, in 2009 the agreement became legally
enforceable and Emily has all the rights as a party to the contract, so she can bring
a suit in the court of Law against Margret to take all the benefits.

Issues: The agreement between Richard and his father comes under the category of
social or domestic contracts. Issue involved here is about the validity of contract
between Richard and his Father and Richard claim his money from him?
Law: For any agreement to be legally binding the parties must have the intention to
create a legal relationship. This is the third essential ingredient of a valid contract.
But the Law presumes that the domestic or social agreements do not have this
intent to legal bind it. However it can be presented before the court that there exists
the intention of legally binding each other but it is very difficult to reverse the
presumption of law. [ Asif, 2009] It is also presumed that the domestic contract
between parent and child is not intended to be legally binding and it was held in the
case of Jones v Padvattan.

But the situation will be different when parties express their clear intention of
making the contract legally binding enter into the contract.
Application: Richard agreed to mow the front land and garden of his house and in
return his father will give him $ 200. This amount may be treated as the
consideration of the contract between them. The work needed much time and labor.
Richard relying on the statement of his father started doing the work. In contractual
terms he was performing his part of contract and after four weeks of his labor his
father refused to pay the agreed amount of $200. As held by many the honorable
courts in many contractual cases related to performance of the contract that the
person who proceeded with his part of performance must not be deprived from
getting his reward. Such as, in Hoeing v Issac and Bolton v Mahadeva, where the
court ordered the defendants to pay the amount for their substantial performance.
[Wallis, 2008]
Conclusion: Therefore Richard is entitled for the payment for his labor of four weeks,
he can move to the court of law to enforce his right against his father.

In the case of Jenny, the circular which she got was an advertisement of the salon
which was distributed to a large number of people not only to Jenny. (Carlill v
carbolic Smoke Pvt. Co.) Now the question is whether Jenny can bind the salon for
misrepresentation? Or can she claim compensation for her loss as she moved from
her place relying on the offer made by the salon.
Law: An advertisement of this kind where attractive services or goods are to be
provided at a cheap price is not an offer to the person to just accept it and make the
contract binding. [Partridge v Crittenden, 1968] This kind of agreement is the
invitation to treat. This means an open invitation to public to make offers and the
service provider or shopkeeper will accept it. It is also not necessary that the person
making such advertisement is bound to sell the product on the same price
mentioned. The circular by the salon comes under the same category where the
prices were also mentioned. [Grainer & Sons v Gough, 1895]
Application of Law: Jenny relying on the price listed in the circular made the
appointment and after reaching to the salon after driving her car for almost 30
minutes was told that it was not the right price for which she was asking. It was
mistakenly mentioned and the correct price is $100. According to the Law Jenny
cannot force them to provide that service for the low price mentioned in the circular,
she can only make the claim for loss she suffered in reaching the salon as it took
almost 30 mins. The principle relating to the revocation of offer is that an offer can
be revoked at any by the offeror before acceptance as was held in Dickinson v
Dodds in 1876. [Composition of an agreement, 2012]
Conclusion: Hence, Jenny can revoke the offer made by her and no need to pay any
charges to the Salon but if she had taken their service and then after it was
disclosed by the salon that the original price is $100 and not $10, Jenny would have
the legal right to sue them for Damages on the grounds of misrepresentation and
non disclosure of essential facts.

Issue: Here in this case the issue is about the validity of contract made by a drunken
person who is not in his senses at the time of entering into it.
Law: The general rule about contract is that any person can enter into a contract but
he has to have the mental capacity and enough maturity to understand the terms
and conditions of the contract. The reason behind the principle is that law does not
want that one party can take advantage of the mental inability of the other party.
Generally courts do not enforce the contract made by the person who is voluntarily
drunk and in capable to understand the contract and he can escape from the liability
of the contract. [Mance, 2012]
Application of Law: Bruce was so drunk that he did not knew that he was actually
bidding at the auction. The auctioneer also knew this. He would have escaped the
liability of the auction contract by simply disavowing it as soon as he sobs but he did
not do this in fact he approves the contract with the auctioneer.
Conclusion: Therefore the contract will be a valid contract and Bruce will be bound
by the contract with auctioneer. Further he will have all the liabilities under an
auction contract.