a. Stating the issue according to case situation
In accordance with the given case situation, Bill agreed to give $70 for mowing his yard and the same is agreed by Emma. Once, yard has mowed thereafter Bill offered $50 to Emma which is the main issue in given case scenario.
b. Assessing the relevant law related to the problem
Under this situation, express terms are applied in which terms and conditions are agreed by both the parties. In the given case, Emma agreed to mow the yard @ $70 and Bill will pay the same so it is considered as express contract.
c. Presenting the main case according to the issue
Dick Bentley Productions V Harold Smith Motors (1965) and Bannerman V White highly suits to the case scenario. In this, court gave judgment that in the case of express terms both the parties are obliged to act according to mutually agreed terms conditions (Terms of a contract, 2017). On the basis of this aspect, if one party makes default in their performance then other one or innocent party has right to make sue for the compensation.
d. Explaining the judgment of court
On the basis of case situation, Emma can sue on Bill for the breach of contract. Hence, Emma will win in the court according to the expressed terms and conditions. Moreover, defendant party is obliged to give compensation for the default made in relation to making payment such as $50 rather than $70.
Cited case situation shows that a man has robbed Mrs Verity’s diamond ring worth of $50000. In this, with motive to get ring back Mrs Verity has announced the reward of $1000. One day Police Constable Smith arrested the theft but Mrs Verity denied giving reward to the concerned authority which is considered as main issue.
By considering the given case situation it can be stated that unilateral contract exists in this. Moreover, in unilateral contract offeror give offer to the general public at large and obliged to perform the same if offeree acts accordingly (Butler and Rodrick, 2015). In this, PC Smith has arrested the robber and demanded for the reward amount. Thus, unilateral contract law is applied in such case.
Relevant case law which is highly suited to this situation implies for Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892).
d. Court judgment
Contract law entails that in the situation of unilateral bindings Mrs. Rich has obligation to give reward to PC Smith. Hence, if Smith will make sue on Mrs. Rich then claimant party has possibility to enjoy the winning situation. Thus, by keeping in mind the case law of Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball it can be stated that Smith has authority to get reward from Mrs. Smith.
a. Stating issue
Presented case situation entails that Mary and her husband Tim both lived in USA. Later, Marry decided to return Australia and her husband Tim agreed to pay weekly allowances such as $500. Three months later, Marry was not provided with the allowances agreed by her husband namely Tim. Marry got divorced from Tim and sued for getting the payment of weekly allowance.
b. Identifying law
On the basis of legal aspects case law of promissory estoppels is applied on cited case. Doctrine of promissory estoppels clearly entails that one party can recover the benefits of promise if there is no existence of legal contract. Law of promissory note relies on the extent to which promisee’s loss is significant in the absence of fulfilled promise. Promissory note may be defined as a legal principle which is enforceable by law irrespective of the fact that it is made without having formal consideration. Hence, promissory estoppels enable injured party to recover on a promise (Rees, Rice and Allen, 2014). According to promissory estoppels person can claim for the compensation when he meets three legally required elements such as promisor, promise and a detriment suffered.
c. Presenting case
Combe V Combe (1951) is one of the well known cases of promissory estoppels that will help in resolving such situation more effectually. In such case, court gave the judgment that when one party made promise to another party then obliged to act accordingly. Hence, such Act will assist Marry in getting allowance such as $500 from her husband.
d. Court’s judgment
If Marry will sue on Tim then there is the possibility that situation is in favor of her. Moreover, promise has been made by Tim to Marry in relation to the offering of weekly allowance such as $500. Previous case findings or results clearly shows that Marry will win the case if sue is made on Tim.
Scenario 1 a. Issue
Given case presents that car has badly damaged by another car which was parked in the parking area of NRL. For parking the car fees of $30 charged by NRL and given a ticket to the concerned authority. On such ticket, it was mentioned that NRL will not accept any kind of liability for loss or damage. It is clearly cited on ticket that vehicles and goods are left at customer’s risk.
b. Legal laws
Rule and regulation of exemption clause is highly associated with the given case problem. Exclusion clause is one which enables individual to limits the liability to a certain extent. Specifically, there are mainly two types of clauses such as limitation and exclusion clause. Under limitation clause, liability of the party is limited to some extent (Vance and et.al., 2013). On the other side, in exclusion clause, concerned party is excluded from liability to the significant level. Rules and regulations also entail that individual is required to give explanation of each clause which is inserted into the contract.
c. Relevant case
By taking into account the case law of Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance (1954), it can be presented that company cannot limit its liability on the basis of exclusion clause. In such case, court decided that on the basis of ambiguity company could not be exempt from liability. Further, case law of Hollier V Rambler Motors (1972) entailed that defendant party could not exclude himself from the liability.
d. Decision of court
In the parking area, it is the accountability of the owner to take care of vehicles which in turn prevents accidents or any kind of damages. However, in the present case accident happened due to the negligence of third party. Thus, both the parties are liable to give compensation to the claimant party.
Scenario 2 a. Evaluating issue
Present case situation entails that on return Guy or individual found that an elephant destroyed the car by sitting on it. Under this, issue is that NRL failed to make proper safe arrangements regarding the car parked in the parking area.
b. Legal regulation
Laws related to exemption clause are applied to such case situation or scenario to the large extent. Moreover, in this, NRL restricted their liability by mentioning the exclusion clause on parking ticket.
c. Case law
Case of Parker V The South Eastern Railway co (1877) it can be said that ticket is merely receipt. In accordance with this, one cannot limit the liability by including the exclusion clause on ticket. Hence, such clause is highly in line with the case of NRL parking (Exclusion Clause, 2017).
d. Court’s judgment
Referring the case laws it can be stated that Guy will win the situation if he sues in against to NRL. Moreover, it is liability of NRL to take high level of caution which in turn restricts undesirable practices. In the parking area, it is the responsibility of NRL to make proper safety arrangements (Vance and et.al., 2015). If NRL will make proper arrangements then there is less possibility that elephant will enter in the parking area and damage the car. Hence, NRL is obliged to give compensation to the guy whose car was damaged.
Case scenario entails that seller of car said that price cannot be beaten anywhere in the world. Hence, by taking into consideration the case situation and judgment in the case of Lens V Devonshire Club (1914) it can be presented that it is merely a puff. Moreover, with the motive to attract custom, tradesman usually makes vague exaggerated claims in adverts. Thus, statement presented by seller to sale motor vehicle is mere a puff and it does not form any basis of the legal binding or contract.
On the basis of cited case scenario, negotiation which takes place between the buyer and seller comes under the category of mis-presentation. By considering the case scenario of Oscar Chess V Williams (1957) it can be presented that in the case of mis-presentation buyer has right to make sue on defendant party (Contractual term or representation, 2017).
Given case presents that the statement such as ‘The sound system is brand new’ is considered as express or contractual terms. Moreover, contractual terms are the one which in turn forms the part of a contract. By referring the case of Reardon Smith Line Ltd V Hansen Tangen it can be depicted that buyer can demand for compensation in against to seller if such statement is not true.