However, Michael sold sound equipment to Kamil; he said that most young people go for less costly car sound equipment which is more affordable. Because of his words, Kamil intend to buy his goods. In a sense, Michael’s words stimulated Kamil, so the agreement could not be a contract.
Conclusion
In summary ,Kamil is under 18 , does not has fully capacity ,and the DNX9140 high performance multimedia DVD is not important as necessary goods such as food ,housing ,education .Besides ,Kamil cannot get any benefit from the trading . Based on the analysis above, the contract between Kamil and Michael is failed. kamil need not do the payment for the last instalment .
No 2
Issue
Kamil drives his car to Melbourne CBD at 18years old .parking at a privately run car park. A sign said ‘Cars parked at owners’ risk’ and there is clause printed at the back of the parking ticket show that management is not liable for any losses .On Kamil’s return, he discovers the Kenwood Excelon DNX9140 sound equipment is missing and the parking lot management denies liability.
The main issue is whether the exclusion clause is binding for Kamil.
Rule
This case involves:
Exclusion clause: Exclusion clauses are clauses, usually written down, that say that one party to the contract will not be responsible for certain happenings. (Legal service commission, Friday Dec 11th 2009)
Unsigned documents: With an unsigned document, an exclusion clause will be binding only if the clause was brought to the notice of the customer .This notice must be reasonable, which determined objectively by the courts. (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.112) In this case ,the entrance of the parking area notice drivers that management is not liable for any losses or damages .so ,if driver drives the car in ,they had agreed with the terms of the contract of parking .
Argument
In this case, Kamil is an adult. Every legal contracts to him could be binding .In the entrance of the car parking area ,a sign ‘Cars parked at owners’ risk’ shows .Every car want to enter will consider whether drive in or not .According to the case Thorton V Shoe Lane Parking Ltd ,they displayed the notice inside the park .When drivers drive the car in the park they may see the sign ,it did not give consumer any choice to decide drive in or leave .So the notice is not reasonable .Therefore ,the exclusion clause was not valid .( T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.113: Thorton V Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971]2 QB163 ) .But in this case ,when drivers drive the car in that means they had no objection to the sign ,the exclusion clause of the parking is valid . The clause printed at the back of the parking ticket said ‘management is not liable for any losses or damages’ .Even driver did not see the sign, it does not matter, because before them entering the parking lot they get a warning. This sign is the second reminder .As the case Thompson V L M & Railway Co; the railway company printed the exclusion clause contained in the timetable. The exclusion clause is valid because reasonable notice had been given and it did not matter that the customers could not read the clause. (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.112: Thompson V L M & Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41) It is same in this case ,Kamil get notice ‘Cars parked at owners’ risk’ twice .The parking lot had given reasonable notice ,the management is not liable for any losses or damages .
Conclusion
In summary, the parking management gives two notices to remind consumer their Personal items safety .Hence, Kamil cannot sue for the Kenwood Excelon DNX9140 sound equipment because the management had been given the reasonable notice, the exclusion clause was valid.
No 3:
Issue
Kamil want to sell his laptop with his friend Sam. Sam agrees to buy the laptop at the price of $500, and pays Kamil. Kamil later discovers the laptop could have been sold at a higher price, so he asks Sam pay an additional $500 for the laptop. Sam refuses.
In this case, the key issue is whether the deal between Kamil and Sam is a valid offer or not .If that is a valid offer, the deal will be a contract and their implied terms are $500 for the laptop.
Rules:
This case involves:
Offer: An offer is a legally binding promise made by one party (the offeror) to another party (the offeree) .Offers once accepted cannot be revoked. (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.46)
Intention to create legal relation: The rule requiring an intention to create legal relation was considered a necessary element of every binding contract to distinguish from social and domestic arrangements that were considered not to form binding legal agreements.(T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.70).Kamil decides to sell his laptop to Sam, and Sam accepted, that is a valid offer and the legal relation is established.
Argument
Kamil decided to sell his laptop to Sam and determined the price of the laptop of $500 .The statement is clear, certain and final, so the valid oral offer is accepted .(T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.46). Once offer established, everyone involved in the offer should abide by it .Although they are friends, they have to comply with the contract .Sam accepted the offer, the contract between Kamil and Sam had been made. The element of promissory estoppel says: there is a clear promise or representation that was made by the promisor and promise (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.67) Kamil asks additional $500 is breaching the contract .Hence, Kamil cannot asks for more money .In addition, after Sam paid $500 to Kamil for the laptop, the transaction between Kamil and Sam were completed and the laptop should belong to Sam .Sam is the owner of the laptop. Kamil cannot ask Sam pay additional money.
Conclusion
In summary ,the valid oral offer was made when Kamil decides to sell his laptop for $500 and Sam accepted .Kamil had been in breaching the contract when he demanded Sam pay additional $500 for the laptop .No matter how much of this laptop could be sold in StudyEasy Store ,he could not change the price ,because their agreement has legal effect ,that is a binding contract to them .Therefore ,Kamil cannot ask more money ,he should sell his laptop at $500 .
Word Count :1455
Reference
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p67.
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p87.
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p112.
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p113.
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p46.
T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, Law and Business, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2006, p70.
Law article, 17th Jan 2010, ‘Contract Law 101 (Part I) -- What Is A Contract?’ Retrieved 26th April 2010 from, < http://www.lycomlawyer.com/Immigration/1928.htm>
Legal service commission, Friday Dec 11th 2009,’exclusion clause ‘, Retrieved 25th April 2010 from <http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch08s02s06.php>