LST2001 Introduction to Business and Company Law Assignment Sample

Sample LST2001 Introduction to Business and Company Law Assignment

Legal Writing Task

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read the instructions BEFORE you start writing your assignment!

1. This assignment is worth 10% of your final mark for this subject.

2. All questions MUST be answered.

3. With regards to formatting, your assignment must be typed with 1.5 or double spacing, and with margins of at least 2cm on all sides. Size 12 font MUST be used.

4. It is essential that you cite relevant authorities (cases) wherever possible to support your reasoning in each answer. We strongly recommend students to use IRAC when answering the assignment questions.

5. Your work MUST be appropriately referenced, using footnotes. Where you state a legal principle, which comes from a case, you must provide a citation to the relevant case. If you are stating a legal principle that is covered in the textbook or lecture and which does not have a relevant case provided in the textbook, you should cite the textbook. You are not expected to use any materials beyond them lectures and the set textbook. But if you do, you must provide appropriate citations. No separate bibliography is required. Format your citations according to the citation guide at the end of this document.

6. Your assignment must be 1000 words or fewer, excluding all footnotes. You must state the word count on the front page of your assignment. (If you fail to provide this, the marker will be forced to estimate the word count, and this may lead to penalties.)

7. You must also state the details of your seminar on the front page of your assignment. This includes the day and time of your seminar, and the name of your seminar leader.

10. You can only submit your assignment once. Submission is final. You will not be able to access your Turnitin originality report. Teaching staff will be checking these reports ourselves.

11. You MUST not plagiarise. To avoid plagiarism, make sure you acknowledge all your sources with appropriate citations

FACTS

Bilal was contacted by a TV Production company about a new position of Producer that they were advertising.

In the email that the CEO sent to Bilal, the company asked about his availability and qualifications.

Bilal responded by email the same day indicating that he met the qualification requirements, was interested and available.

Bilal was then contacted by the Human Resources department and told that he was ‘just the person’ they were looking for. The company told Bilal they would pay for his relocation costs from Sydney to Melbourne.

On the basis of that discussion, Bilal declined the lucrative position he was considering in Sydney and arrived in Melbourne. He preferred to live in Melbourne because most of his extended family was located here.

He opened his email when he arrived in Melbourne (his email had not been functioning for the last week properly as his inbox was overfull and he had been too busy to have it fixed).

An email had been sent by the company one week ago but due to the malfunction of his inbox Bilal was only able to read it now. The email indicated that the position Bilal had come to Melbourne for was no longer available. Bilal was extremely upset and told the company that they had breached the contract Bilal had agreed with him.

The company stated to Bilal that in their view that no written contract existed. They admitted that there had been some oral discussion and email exchanges but denied that any contract was made between the parties.

The company indicated that if Bilal wished to work for the company a more junior position, then the role of ‘assistant’ producer was available. The pay and hours were much less than the original position.

Bilal wants to sue the company for breach of contract. The University claim no contract ever existed and that the parties had only engaged in discussions.

QUESTION

Please advise Bilal whether or not a contract existed between him and the company and what defences that company might put forward.

Solution

Issue

In the given scenario the legal issue has been identified is the existence or entering of any contract between Bilal and TV production Company or any breach of contract has been made by Company. The issue is also to identify if the communication of revocation has been effectively communicated.

Rule

According to Australian Contract law , there are some key elements for formation of contract. The key elements are offer, acceptance, intention to create a legal relation, capacity to contract and sufficient consideration. The acceptance of the contract can be orally, in writing, by performance such as in unilateral contracts and must be communicated to offeror. The means of communication for acceptance of offer is phone, SMS, email, post, or any method specified by offeror. However, acceptance does not take place when there is silence, inaction, counter offer, or no response has been received to the offer. Some invitations such as advertisement, auction bids, shop displays are invitations to treat but cannot be called as offer. Advertisements are invitation to others to make an offer for assignment help.

Furthermore, a mental decision to accept is not sufficient and acceptance need to be communicated. The general rule of agreement states that an agreement is only concluded when communication of acceptance has been received. In the case of using instantaneous mode of communication, the acceptance is said to be received even when it is not read by offeror. There is need to use clear language to call an agreement to be accepted and if no clear language is existed then effective and fast method of communication is effective.

As in the case of Crown v Clarke High court, Australia, the issue was acceptance and valid requirement for acceptance to be there in response to offer. There was no agreement formed between parties as the information was given but not in response to the offer.

In the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co , court held that offer can only be revoked when revocation is directly communicated to offeree except postal communication. An offer can be withdraw before accepted and it is not relevant if the offer is expressed to remain open to be accepted in stipulated time or not unless the promise includes any consideration.

Application

Email has been considered as instant mode of communication. Production Company used the email as mode of communication of non-acceptance as no such method of communication has been clarified between parties. There are no universal rules apply to every cases and need to be resolved by checking the intention of the parties to the Contract . The law clearly says that the acceptance is always required to be clearly communicated. In the case Production Company did not accepted the offer as only discussions were going on. Production Company only showed the advertisement of producer position as a treat to make an offer. TV Production Company communicated their non-acceptance through email which was instantly received by Bilal but was not read.

A contract will only be formed when both parties accepted the contract. Company was only mentioning its terms and conditions but did not accept the offer. However, Bilal communicated his acceptance of the offer that he is interested and available but still Company’s acceptance was pending. The non-acceptance of the offer has been sufficiently communicated by Company to Bilal but he could not read the email due malfunctioning of his email. As per specific rule of acceptance the communication of acceptance through email is said to be received immediately irrelevant if the email has not been seen.

The contract is said to take place when all key elements have been existed to form the Contract . The parties carried intention to enter into contract where Company advertised for the new position of producer and Bilal applied for the position respectively which was a treat to invite offers. Though, both parties were capable to legally enter into contract but, the acceptance was only from Bilal side and Company did not accept the offer either orally or in written as the human resource department of the Company only explained the terms of the offer to Bilal. Bilal assumed the acceptance of the Company in mind and took action by declining position in Sydney which does not form a valid contract. There is no agreement took place between Company and Bilal as human resource department of Company was only performing their duty to provide information but that was not in respect of the offer.

Email is direct and instant communication and revocation will be considered as valid. Production Company sent the email a week before but due to malfunctioning of email of Bilal for a week, Bilal could not read the revocation. However, Company was successful to directly communicate to Bilal conveying an intention to not bind by offer is sufficient in eyes of law.

Conclusion

In the given case, the contract has not been conducted as there was no acceptance and consideration. Bilal was invited by Company to offer and Company discussed terms and conditions with Bilal. However, Company decided to revoke the offer and communicated Bilal through email which was not read by Bilal. Company did its direct communication of withdrawing of intention to get into contract and thus no contract could be form. There was no acceptance and agreement thus there was no contract between Company and Bilal except discussion of the terms and conditions of the Contract. Bilal did not wait for Company’s acceptance and assumed in his mind that the contract took place within such oral and written discussion of terms of condition. A contract need to be valid will all key elements and were missing in the eyes of law. Therefore, there was no valid contract and no breach of contract by Company as alleged by Bilal.

Bibliography

Australian Contract law, 2019. Overview of Agreement. [Viewed 25 March 2022]. available at https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/law/agreement
bosslawyers, 2019. Formal execution of contract. [Viewed 25 March 2022] https://www.bosslawyers.com.au/will-contract-not-formally-executed-will-considered-binding-concluded/

Legislation
Australian Contract Law
Legal Cases
Crown v Clarke (High Court, 1927)
In the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344

Fill the form to continue reading

Sample LST2001 Introduction to Business and Company Law Assignment

GRAB LAW ASSIGNMENT HELP : A+ GRADE ASSURED Place Your Order Now and Get Up To 20% Discount!