Studentsarerequiredto resolve two caseproblemtype questions from a listof case problem questions provided from the prescribed textbook using IRAC method, based on topics discussed in lectures. Case...

Case Law Discussions
Case Law 1: Contract law
Issue:
The case scenario is based on analysing and evaluating contractual ability of Margaret. It is found that Margaret run and owned an antique store, established in 2010 as a destination selling rare porcelain dolls. Initially, it was established as a business shop in 2010, later on, business shop was grown and advertised on the Internet. In 2015, business owner Margaret decided to run the business for another couple of years and then retire. For this, her youngest daughter Emily was hired for working in the shop. She was asked to work in the shop for as long as was needed, and, agreed to receive unsold dolls in the form of compensation. At the time of retirement, business owner decided to give the unsold stock of porcelain dolls to the charity, allowed it to auction and keeping the proceeds.
The legal issue is to determine whether Emily is entitled to raise any claim against Margaret for her compensation or any other right she owes against the family business and owner.
Rule
The underlying case is addressed as per the provisions of Contract law, which stipulates contractual capacity to contract as an essential condition. The condition contractual capacity states that an individual can enter into legally binding contracts with other parties only if individual has legal competence to step or enter into the agreement. It is the fundamental issue to consider whether both parties are competent to enter into the contract (Carter, 2013).
The contractual capacity is determined by the reason of age, mental disability, and intoxication. In Australia, contractual capacity is the age of 18 years, stating that when an individual reaches at this age is considered as competent to enter into contracts. A minor is not considered as competent to enter into contract. Mental disability is another basic contractual condition stating that a person who lacks mental capacity to understand the
oad nature and effect of the transaction is not entitled to enter into the contract. An individual with mental capacity can easily comprehend the details of the contract, its
oad significance and importance (DiMatteo & Hogg, 2016). Any individual with mental faculties and impaired suffer from the lack of mental capacity. Any kind of incapacity due to mental disability or any kind of problem prevents an individual from entering into any kind of contract. Lastly, bankrupts are also prohibited from entering into any kind of contract, in spite, if they have general capacity to enter into contracts (Fairweather, O'Shea & Grantham, 2016).
A famous intoxication case law titled, ‘Blomley v Ryan High Court of Australia [1956] HCA 81; (1956) 99 CLR 362 (28 March 1956)’ where court considered situations in which intoxication led an individual to prelude the basic competence to enter into contract. In the case, Blomley entered into contract with Ryan who was found as prolonger and excessive consumption of alcohol at the time of contract. Later on, Blomley refused for specific performance and Ryan alleged against him, but, Justice rejected the claim on the ground that Ryan was not in the condition of specific performance at the time of signing the contract (Blomley v Ryan High Court of Australia [1956] HCA 81; (1956) 99 CLR 362 (28 March 1956, 2020).
Another case law based on mental disability in the history of Australian contract law is titled as ‘Gi
ons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423’. The case is based on analysing whether a contract was effective or ineffective on account of ‘mental capacity’ on the part of two parties of the contract. The facts of the case stated that Gi
ons and her two sisters-in-law executed joint tenancy document and converted it into tenancy document, later on. After their death, it was claimed by Gi
ons that tenancy document was invalid and ineffective as sisters-in-law lacked mental capacity to enter into contract (Gi
ons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423, 2020).
Application
On the basis of above discussed provisions of Contract law in Australian contract law, it could be said that Emily is legally incompetent to enter into contract. She was a minor at the time of joining the family business, therefore, compensation and working hours agreed between Margaret and Emily is not legally justifiable....