Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When sheopened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999she started to advertise on...

1 answer below »
Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When sheopened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the pointwhere she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one night atthe kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep thebusiness going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughterand aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she wouldreceive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that shewould give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds.Advise Emily.2. Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into anarrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front- and backyards of thefamily property mowed, and he will ‘do a bit’ to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return,his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously used agarden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare property,and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richard’s father tells himthat he can’t afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the workfor nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property;besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging. Advise Richard.3. Jenny received a circular from Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon advertising massages andmanicures for $10. Realising that this was an exceptionally good deal, but not surprisedbecause she knew that they had only just opened and were running a number of goodopening specials, she rang and made a booking. When Jenny arrived at the salon she wastold that there had been a mistake on the circular and it should have said $100. Themanager of the salon explained that this was still a good price because normally amassage and manicure would have cost $150. Jenny was furious, as it had taken her 30minutes to get to the shop by car and if she had known it would cost $100, she wouldnever have made the booking. Advise Jenny. Would your advice have been any different ifJenny had the massage and manicure before being told that the cost was $100? Wouldshe have to pay the full price?4. Bruce, while he was so drunk that he didn’t know what he was doing, bid successfully atan auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Bruce didn’tknow what he was doing. However, after Bruce sobered up he confirmed the contractwith the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Brucebound?
Answered Same Day Dec 21, 2021

Solution

Robert answered on Dec 21 2021
128 Votes
Business Law
Business Law
Contract Law
Business Law
Answer 1 - The case of Margaret and Emily
The contract law, as per the business law in Australia is applicable in this case.
A contract refers to a communicated agreement that is accepted by both the parties based
on mutual understanding and consent as well as free will. A contract has several
elements that should be present in it for it to be legally acceptable. Once a contract it
formed its fulfilment becomes a legal binding.
The given case is a case of not honouring a contract where in Margaret did
promise Emily to give her the unsold dolls as a compensation for the work that she
endered in the antique store. But while retiring she does not fulfil the contract and
decides to give these dolls in charity.
It is a clear case of not fulfilling of contract. Margaret is bound to honour the
contract. She should compensate Emily for her work, as decided by initially giving her
the unsold dolls. Emily can rightfully claim those dolls as the promised compensation for
the work that she rendered and can prove this by presenting all of the family members as
witnesses for this promise being made and the terms and conditions of this being agreed
with a compensation, thus making this agreement an enforceable contract as per the
contract law (Velasquez, 2005).
A contract or clause is procedurally unconscionable and so a standardized
contract cannot be considered as a contract of adhesion if it is conscionable. It requires
the approval of the parties, stakeholders and legal authorities for a non-standardized
contract to be created.
On these several basis, it can be concluded that Emily can claim her right on the
unsold dolls and this can result in her being able to sue Margaret for not fulfilling the
Business Law
contract. In this way Emily has a right to protect herself from being not fulfillinged and
eing compensated for the efforts that she had put in (Marquis & Houston, 2006).
Answer 2 - The case of Richard
Richard is entitled to the amount totalled in the four weeks before his father
having told him that he can't afford $200 a week for the garden. The total of...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here