LAW2442 Commercial Law Assignment Sample

Sample LAW2442 Commercial Law Assignment

Background

You are a graduate working in the procurement and logistics department of Wineglass Bay Seafood Pty Ltd – a company specialising in supplying fresh seafood directly to restaurants. The company also sells seafood direct to the public at its marine farm situated on the east coast of Tasmania and has three outlets at nearby towns. In your interview for the graduate position, you highlighted your knowledge of business law completed as part of your RMIT degree. See attached memorandum from your team manager, along with an invoice, company search extract, and relevant email correspondence.

Task

You are required to address your team manager’s questions in the form of a memorandum of advice. Refer to the RMIT Learning Lab resources for advice on the structure.

Wineglass Bay Seafood
Memorandum

Disputed Purchase – Launceston Printing and Design

Jemma, our outlet manager in Bicheno, has received an invoice from earlier this year. It appears there is a disagreement between her and a signage company about whether or not things were properly ordered or not. The dispute is above $5,000 so Jemma has escalated the matter to us at head office in line with company policy. I am away on leave next week. In my absence, I am tasking you with reviewing the enclosed materials and providing me with a memorandum containing your critical analysis in response to the following questions:

- Is there a valid contract for the banners?
- Is there a valid contract for the outdoor sign?
- Is Wineglass Bay Seafood bound by the so-called “terms and conditions”?
- Are there any other legal issues arising from the materials?

Please give legal reasons for your answers and keep your analysis to a maximum of 1,500 words. I need this back no later than Monday 12 September 2022, so that I have enough time to consider whether to pay the invoice or send it to our lawyers. If you have any questions or need further information to complete your analysis, please just include this in your memorandum – don’t bother Jemma with any questions yet. If any other relevant information comes through while I’m away, I’ll forward it to you.

Solution

To
Ms Jemma Fishburne
Senior Manager
Customer Complaints
Date: 10th September 2022

Dear Ms Jemma Fishburne,

R.E: Customer Complaint - Jemma Fishburne

We are very thankful for the email dated 29th August 2022, as I have viewed all the emails and factors related to the case. The impact of the matter is very much interesting as the main agenda is the fault of both sides. Though there are many factors that are needed to be looked into for the evaluation of the cases and the fault from both sides and the impact are necessary for the improvements of the study.

1. Is there any valid contract for the banners?

In the case study, Ms Jemma offered to build a banner for her organisation Bicheno for seafood. But the case was disturbed when you cancelled the order. Our company has charged around $5000 which is very high in case of the development of the laws. I personally considered all of the malls that have been provided to you by is and there are huge mistakes from our sides too. But the main impact is generally from your side as there are many factors that are effective for the disclosure of the case.

1.1 Scenario

There are many issues that are being created from both sides. As per the email from you on 2nd September 2022 two of our boys have left a huge hole in the preparation of the banner and they left the banner incomplete in the section which is a huge mistake. On other hand, you have suddenly cancelled the order which affected our company as the improvements are legally effective for the matter of the different aspects. These mistakes are very effective from our point of view and it needs to be resolved by us properly.

1.2 Regulations and Laws

There isn’t any valid contract for the banners but the Australian contract law is the main factor for the contract violation and the violation of the contract needs to be impacted by the registered factors for the implementation in this case. The case law of “A v Hayden” in 1984 is the main factor for the contract violence which is registered under “156 CLR 532”. It is a similar case for assignment help as per the case including the case study. In this case, members of “The Australian Security Intelligence Services” acted beyond the law during the training and they suffered punishment for this case . In this case, the company should get the advantage as you violated the contract. The case study of “ACCC v, Quantum Housing” filed in 2021 under “FCAFC 40” stated that Quantum housing has violated the law and contract of NRAS in dealing with the investors. It is very effective for the country as the country delivers a huge impact on the chase . This case also has similarities to this case and the order should support the company.

1.3 Conclusion

The discussion stated that there is no legal contract for the banners but the contract needed to be fulfilled at any cost either by any of the sides in the country. Here the company gets the advantage as the contract is violated by Ms Jemma Fishburne.

2. Is there a valid contract for the outdoor sign?

From our side, the contract will be fulfilled but the contract violation is generally caused by you so there is no violence that you can make or cause for the filling of the case as there are no issues from our side.

2.1 Scenario

The email from September 2 also stated that the two workers from our company had violated the contract and had made a huge impact on the company's financial aspects. The two workers made a huge mistake by not sealing the whole for the banners which resulted in the destruction of private property in this case.

2.2 Rules and Regulations

In this context, Australian contract law will be also applicable as the two workers did not complete the task for the day and left the work unfinished. They have paid for the task to date and still, they left the task unfinished. There are many similar case laws related to the factor including the case of “Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kimberly-Clark Australia” which is filed in 2019 under “FCA 992”. In this case, Kimberly-Clark Australia has faced a penalty of $200,000 for misleading consumers . In this concept, our company also misled Ms Jemma and this is very effective for you as you can file a case and the fine cannot be paid for the penalty in this concept. “Mackie v Central Coast leagues Club” is the case that is very much relevant to the case under the section of “NSWSC 960” in 2010. In this case, the company has to face a huge amount of penalty for damaging the property . In this case, The Company also destroyed the whole property for which the company has to pay a huge amount of fine to Ms Jemma Fishburne.

2.3 Conclusion

The discussion generally delivered the vision of Jemma Fishburne for which the fine is not needed to be paid. The case studies that are discussed here are supporting Ms Jemma Fishburne as the company could not provide the proper system of methods for the development of the article. In this context, all the cases are supporting Ms Jemma Fishburne.

3. Is Wineglass Bay Seafood bound by the so-called “terms and conditions”?

In this case study, several “terms and conditions” the promise has been made by Wineglass bay Seafood has not been fulfilled as the fine has not been paid by Ms Jemma. There has been an issue in building a banner by this company. In this case, Jemma has not been able to keep the promise and hence, an issue has occurred.

3.1 Scenario

Several issues have been raised in the case of terms and conditions by this specific company. According to the email that has been sent on August 19, 2022, there has been an observance of liability in the case of this particular company. The appreciation of prompt payment that will be done by Jemma, has been done by Accounts Department of Launceston Signs and Designs. In the email of the above mentioned date, it has been clearly mentioned that a force will be exerted on the company for the consideration of the legal options.

3.2 Regulations and Laws

It is quite difficult in the case of the company to maintain the terms and conditions as a huge amount of charge has been exerted on them. An example of this can be taken from the law of “ ACCC vs LG Electronics Pty Ltd”, that has been registered under ‘FCAFC 96” there has been an issue of misleading conduct. In addition to that, there has been an issue of acceptance of the quality by the consumers. Hence, LG Electronics has to maintain terms and conditions to guarantee the quality of its products to the customers of Australia. However, in this case, though hard attempt has been made by ACCC, the judgement of primary judge has not provided any chance for it to exert the terms and conditions in the case of LG Electronics even when it has been prepared for it. Similarly, like LG Electronics, there will be a fair judgement for Wineglass Bay Seafood so that it can avoid the so-called terms and conditions.

3.3 Conclusion

From the side of the company, an effective attempt will be made to fulfil the demands of the Launceston Signs and Designs. With the help of this, the position of the company will not deteriorate.

4. Are there any other legal issues arising from the materials?

There has been a presence of legal issue in the case of the contract as there has been a presence of denial of paying the invoice. This email has been sent by Jemma to the Accounts Department of Launceston Signs and Designs.

4.1 Scenario

It has been clearly mentioned by Jemma that she will not pay any sort of invoice. The causes that she has mentioned in the email of 15th August, 2022 is that order of the banners that are the pull up in nature has not been done. She has made it clear that there has been a delivery of order and she has directly said that the order can be taken back by Launceston Signs and Designs as per its desire. Cancellation of order of outdoor sign has been done and a disagreement has been mentioned by Jemma in the case of delivery fee.

4.2 Regulations and Laws

In this case, there can be a case that can be filed by Launceston Signs and Designs on Jemma for not giving the payment of invoice and no contract will be made between them. In addition to that, she has directly uttered that she is responsible for the delivery fee. As per the case of “PNG vs Leahy”, under 105 CLR 6 failure has been observed in the case of PNG. As per the decision of High Court, no contract will be further made between them.

4.3 Conclusion

From the side of Jemma, there is a requirement of payment of invoice. There has been a requirement of getting contract for the good reputation of the company in future.

Reference List

Fill the form to continue reading

Sample LAW2442 Commercial Law Assignment

GET STARTED NOW AND GRAB COMMERCIAL LAW ASSIGNMENT HELP Up To 20% Discount - Don't miss out on this chance and fill up the below form!