• • • • • • • • • • • http://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pid=160012&sid=1513435 https://web.library.uq.edu.au/files/406/filename.pdf http://law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr/submissions/quick-aglc...

CONTRACT LAW
Introduction
Contract is defined as an agreement that exist between two on more competent party. Contract involve offer that is made between two parties at accepted with legal validation and provides benefits to each party[footnoteRef:1]. The contract cannot be lawfully come to force until the following features are provided- [1:
Smith, J.. Contract law in Australia [Book Review]. (2018), Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Te
itory, (248), 60.
.]
· An actual offer which is made by the party.
· Acceptance of the offer by another party
· Intentions for creation of legal relationship by the parties.
· Consideration regarding the offer in which the prices that is given in exchange for the promise or price per for the offer must be ca
ied out.
The contract agreement may be formal informal written or just plain understanding.
John vs. George
The probability of George will have cause of actions against
each of contract is dependent on the fact whether parties are involved in deal is itself enforceable contract.
In the given case scenario, the plaintiff was offered a mini Cooper if the share price of particular company trebles as was claimed by plaintiff[footnoteRef:2]. However all the essential terms of the contracts were not met. The offer that was agreed by both the parties was not legally bounded neither at the time of acceptance the parties intended to bound the decision legally. The considerations relating to exchange in the transactions were also not formerly solemnized. John was making a general claim relating to the prices of the particular share and George being a shareholder of that particular company made an offer for the claims made by John. [2: McKendrick, E., & Liu, Q, Contract Law: Australian Edition. (Macmillan International Higher Education, 6th edition, 2015)
]
This agreement can be stated as incomplete. There were no terms and conditions paved out and according to George the ve
al discussions were general remarks in fun.
Ve
al agreements are difficult to prove and enforcement of ve
al agreement and in absence of any hidden documentary evidence it is difficult to prove actual terms of agreement.
There was an absence of any offer made in behalf of John.
The transaction needed to be fully acknowledged by the legal terms of the case[footnoteRef:3]. Though George had made a deal on ve
al terms and was accepted by John but there are no concrete evidences to prove the terms of the contracts. Furthermore, it can also be claimed that the provisions can be evidenced that the intentions of the parties must have been immediately documented and legally bounded as per the terms of legal contract. The performance can be deemed as suspended until execution or lack of evidence that leads to intention to immediately contract terms. As per the provisions the formal contract is for the purposes of providing set out terms in the head of the agreements. So it can be argued the clauses will have no effect since now such documents are executed[footnoteRef:4]. [3: Whincop, M. J., Keyes, M., & Posner, R. A. Policy and Pragmatism in the Conflict of Laws. (Routledge, 5th edition, 2018).
] [4: McKendrick, E. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. (Oxford University Press, 5th edition, 2014).
]
The issue also arises whether to express obligations must be ca
ied out in the good faith and cooperation for agreeing on the terms of the deal that was executed orally.
The relevancy of efficacy of entire agreement as discussed can provide that John has no contractual right against George.
Paul vs. Ringo
The present case outlines...