Offer negotiation Offers or invitations to ‘treat’ Acceptance 4


Capacity and Formalities 1. Capacity



Yüklə 386,94 Kb.
səhifə9/13
tarix30.01.2018
ölçüsü386,94 Kb.
#41329
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13

Capacity and Formalities

1. Capacity:


  • Minors: Binding on minor for necessaries, unless repudiated/ void on option of minor

  • Mentally disabled (intoxicated similar): voidable if they can prove they were incapable of understanding contract at the time and other party new or ought to have know this

  • Companies, Corporations Act 2001 Cth

    • s124 a company has the legal capacity of both and individual (both inside and out of jurisdiction), corporation and body corporate

    • s125 constitution of a company may not limit legal powers

    • s126 agent may exercise a companies power regarding contracts



2. Formality (linked to express terms and intention):


  • Common law has few formal requirements

  • makes identification of terms easier, promotes caution by drawing attention to potentially serious consequences, protects vulnerable parties and channels making certain types

  • Lord Wright: statue creates rather than prevents injustice as parties can avoid requirements

  • Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp)

    • No action on certain contracts unless agreement is in writing and signed

    • Vestiges remain in common law world.

    • Differences within Australian State law

    • Many technicalities.

  • Property Dealers and Motor Agents Act 2000 (Qld),

    • S133: (1) real estate agent must be appointed in writing, (3) must state service and fees

    • s300: used motor vehicles: (3) dealer must give statement including: identification, names, cooling off period, amount non-refundable, (4) must be signed, (5) before contract to buy

  • Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld)

    • S26: building contractor must ensure contract is written as soon as practicable (within 5 days) and before work is carried out

    • S30: must be signed

  • Electronic Transactions Act 2001 (Qld)

    • S.8: Transaction not invalid because it took place by electronic means

    • S.14: electronic signature requirements


Express Terms


Sanctity of written doc v. evidence other of terms (undermines certainty of common law).

1. Signature


  • L'Estrange v. Graucob [1934] KB: binding in absence of fraud or misrepresentation even if unread.

  • *Toll v Alphapharm (2004 HC): immaterial whether doc was read. Terms on reverse included as signature below ‘please read overleaf prior to signing’. Exclusion clauses with less clarity can be read down.

  • Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning: receipt excluded all liability, but when questioned cleaner said it was for beads only  exchange limited exclusion. Denning: reasonably thought it was just a receipt.

1.1 Doctrine of Non Est Factum (it is not his deed, historic use, heavy onus of proof)

  • Petelin v Cullen [1975 HC]: could not read or speak English, signed contract. Upheld. Limitations:

    1. unable to read or have any understanding of a doc through no fault of their own

    2. signed doc believing it was radically different OR failure to understand was not due to carelessness

    3. Should take reasonable precautions to ascertain character of doc before signing

  • Saunders v. Anglia Building Soc. [1971] AC: Mrs G glasses broken and signs transfer of house to wrong person. Held: G new it was a legal doc. Should have got glasses or assumed risk herself.

    • DOC: BOP on signer. Mrs G not physically or mentally incapable. busy, lazy or relied on trusted person insufficient. Could have asked it to be read or got glasses.

2.2 online signatures: Elizabeth Macdonald:

  • EU and UNCITRAL define and allow online signatures

  • Clicking I agree should not amount to signature and incorporate l’estrange were unjustness outweighed by certain as not reading online is more common and lacks significance and alerting power.

2. Term/collateral contract or mere representation/opinion


  • Shepperd v. Municipality (1952) CLR: BOP on person alleging term, why wasn’t term in main contract:

    • Was statement intended to induce P to enter contract? Puffery?

    • Was there reliance by P?

    • Can content of term be formulated precisely, e.g. In the form of a guarantee?

  • Savage v Blakney [1970 HC]: mere statement of opinion ‘approximate calculation based on probability’.

  • *Ross v. Allis Chalmers (1987) ALJR: merely an opinion to help estimate risk: “My own experience

  • Factors indicating statement meant as a term

    • Esso v Mardon: Knowledge of parties, Hospital Products v US Surgical Corp: Time of statement

    • Importance, frequency, precision, reliance and relationship to written ‘contract’, intent

3. Parol Evidence Rule (presumption written doc whole contract)


  • Stoddart Tiles v. Alcan (1983) SCQld: May be possible to look outside doc to find intention

  • Nemeth v Bayswater Road [1988] FC Qld (obiter): “presumption will vary according to a variety of circumstances, including the nature, form and content of the written instrument”

  • Old cases strict application: Gordon v McGregor (1909) CLR: presumption doc is binding record of contract

3.1 Exceptions to PER

  • Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan CLR: Extrinsic evidence is admissible for “exceptions”

  • Ambiguity and Implied terms Codelfa (1982), if both parties want to rectify, Custom Hutton v Warren (1836), Condition precedent Pym v. Campbell (1856), Invalidity (eg misrepresentation or “mistake”) Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing (drycleaning), Rectification (equity intervention), Estoppel Saleh v Romanous [2010]

  • Collateral contracts (independent contract connected to main contract, one consideration for other)

    • Van Den Eschert v Chappell (1960) WAFC: P bought house after being answered there were no white ants. Signed contract did not mention ants. Promissory: immediately before contract signed, tipped him over the line and ants a big problem in aust.

    • Hoyt's v. Spencer (1919) CLR: Knox, Rich and Issacs: where written contract is contradicted by collateral PER applies. lease said terminable on 4 weeks, but landlord promised beforehand.

    • cf: Ferguson and Maralinga: not court function to determine parties agreements, cant say agreement doesn't reflect intent when there is knowledge and a signature

3.2 Contract Partly In Writing

  • The Ardennes [1951] KB: oral promise cargo would sail direct, once loaded doc issued allowing detour. Doct not contract but evidence of it.

  • County Securities v Challenger Group (2008) NSWCA: Extrinsic evidence of conversations could be admitted. Spigelman CJ: ‘subject matter determined using surrounding circumstances including conversations, docs and conduct ’. Important to distinguish oral contract from negotiations

  • Skyrise Consultants v Metroland [2011] NSWCA: Easier to say part oral/part in writing if consistent.

    1. “Entire Contract” Clauses

  • Nemeth v Bayswater Road [1988] FC Qld: indication that doc meant to be entire contract in exclusion clause. McPherson: pre-contractual oral exchange expressed hope.

  • Skiwing v Trust Co [2011] FCA: Sensible use, clause cannot exclude fraud. clause combined with questionnaire effective in acknowledging what has been agreed rather than excluded

  • Alstom v Yokogawa Australia: to supersede earlier agreement

  • Hope v RCA Robophone (1937) CLR: Clause conclusive Cf. Nemeth v Bayswater Road: Not decisive

  • MacDonald v Shinko Australia [1999] QCA: Clauses show intent but are subject to: rectification, misrepresentation, implied terms, later oral variation, attempts to excluded liability - CCA 2010,

Yüklə 386,94 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin