Discuss the below:
Q1 Charlie decided to go to a rugby match and joined a queue of cars waiting to park in a car parking area next to the ground. He paid a $ 10 entrance fee and was handed a ticket by an attendant. Charlie put the ticket in his pocket without reading it and parked his car. During the rugby match, bored attendants in the car park passed the time away playing with soccer balls. One of the balls hit a hanging lamp post, which came crashing down on Charlie's car causing considerable damage. When Charlie complained to the organisers of the event, they denied liability on the basis of words printed on the back of Charlie's ticket which said: "The organisers of this event will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever to any parked vehicle or its contents. Vehicles are parked at the customer's risk." Advise Charlie whether the words on the ticket form part of his contract with the event organisers. (Refer to general law principles only)
Q2 Section 15 of the Computer Retailers Act provides as follows: (a) Any person who sells any new computer as part of their business shall at the time of sale supply the purchaser with a statement in writing setting out the information stipulated in Schedule I of this Act. (b) Any person who fails to comply with sub-section (a) shall be liable to a penalty of $1,000. Clump, a computer retailer, recently contracted to sell a new computer for $4,000 to Trinton, who agreed to pay for it within seven days of the date of contract. At the time of the sale, no statement of the type required by s 15(a) of the Computer Retailers Act was given by Clump. On the due date for payment of the purchase price, Trinton refused to make the payment and demanded that the sale be cancelled because Clump ‘broke the law'. Clump seeks your advice as to whether Trinton could get out of the contract because of the provisions of the Act.
Q3 Levi and Lola were married 15 years ago. Lola had been a partner at a major multi-national accountancy practice and retired to start a family. Levi was a diamond trader and had done well for himself in the boom years, but in recent times things had not gone so well for his business. Lola and Levi own a waterfront home in Sydney, two luxury European cars and a holiday home in Port Macquarie. About five years ago Levi asked Lola to execute documents for a mortgage in favour of his bank to guarantee a loan for his business. Levi told Lola not to worry because this was only a temporary safeguard. Lola executed four more documents over the following four years for the same purpose. In each case their properties and cars were security for the loans. Lola was busy with her pregnancies over that period of time and preoccupied with raising the children. A few months ago, Lola received notice as joint owner of the real estate and cars that the bank was about to foreclose unless Levi's business debt, now totalling just over $2 million, was paid back to the bank. Lola claims that she did not know the extent of Levi's indebtedness and that she did not know the amounts of money involved in any of the mortgages she had signed. Lola seeks your advice as to any arguments she could raise to set aside the mortgages she has signed. (Refer to general law principles only).
Q4 Quarry Ltd has a contract to export coal worth $500 million to a large Asian company. Because of the tight international market for coal, Quarry Ltd has kept its profit margin very low in order to get the contract and ensure future business in the Asia-Pacific region. After the contract is signed, the Australian government passes legislation that provides for a range of new environmental taxes and increased costs for the export of fossil fuels such as coal. The management of Quarry Ltd realise that their profit margin will disappear and that the company is facing a huge loss on the contract. They seek to renegotiate the deal, but the Asian company refuses and insists on paying only the agreed price. Quarry Ltd seeks your advice about whether it can be relieved of its contractual obligations because the new taxes and costs make it impossible to perform the contract as agreed by the parties.
Q5 Matteo is an elderly, frail man with very little knowledge of English. He granted Larry, a property developer, an option to purchase his property at Redfern for a $500 option fee. The option was to be exercised within three months. At the time of the grant of the option, Larry told Matteo that he would receive another $500 within three months. The day before the option expired, Larry's agent, Pixie, gave $500 to Matteo and asked him to sign a receipt for the money. Matteo signed the paper she gave him, but he discovered later that it was in fact an extension of the option for a further three months. Larry exercised the option within the extended period, and now seeks to enforce it. Matteo does not want to proceed with the sale because he is shocked to learn that the purchase price is about 25% below market value. Matteo seeks your advice as to whether he could set aside the extension of the option he signed. [5 marks]Q6 Margaret signed and exchanged contracts for the sale of her studio apartment to Felicity, who acted for herself. Felicity paid a 10% deposit on exchange of contracts. Completion of the transaction was due to take place on 10 January this year. On 6 January, Felicity notified Margaret that her mortgagee bank would not be ready to proceed on the agreed completion date and requested an extension of time to complete. Margaret did not agree to any extension of time. The transaction was not completed on 10 January, and on 13 January Margaret served a notice to complete on Felicity. The date for completion in the notice was stipulated as being 'no later than 3pm on 31 January this year'.
On the date and time stipulated in the notice, Felicity was ready with her documents to complete the transaction, but a representative of her bank was late and settlement could not proceed. At 3.15pm on that day, Margaret, who had been ready, willing and able to complete the transaction, handed Felicity a notice terminating the contract. Margaret also told Felicity that she would be retaining the deposit that had been paid on exchange of contracts.
In relation to the above facts:
a) Could Margaret, upon receiving Felicity's notification on 6 January, have terminated the contract on that day?
b) Does Felicity have any basis upon which she would be entitled to recover the deposit that she paid on exchange of contracts?
Q7 Donna is a keen skateboarding competitor who has competed in many women's skateboarding competitions in Australia and overseas. She is looking forward to competing for the first time in the new Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic, and has already registered and paid the competition fee. She thinks she has a very good chance of doing well this year and even winning the main prize.
She arrives in Surfers Paradise three days before the competition and books into a hostel with her skateboarding friend Heidi. After practising on the first day, she decides to relax on the second day and go sightseeing with Heidi. They decide to visit Mount Bullfrog, one of the area's main tourist attractions and a place they have not seen before. They proceed to the wildlife reserve and the famous Mount Bullfrog lookout. Before they pay the entrance fee, Donna notices a large sign at the main entrance. It says 'Welcome to Mount Bullfrog' and contains interesting information about the geography of the area, the Aboriginal landmarks and the local flora and fauna. It also includes other official-looking information that Donna does not bother to read. Some of the information is covered by bushes. Included in that information at the bottom of the sign are the following words:
"Patrons enter at their own risk. The Mount Bullfrog Reserve is not liable for your loss or injury."
About 10 minutes after entering, Donna and Heidi are making their way towards the main lookout area, when suddenly Donna's shoe slips on a wet piece of rock covered in moss. She falls and fractures a small bone in her foot. After attending the main office and sick bay for treatment, Donna is told by the Reserve manager that they are not liable to compensate her for any injury or damage she may have suffered because of the notice displayed at the entrance.
After attending the local hospital and having her foot x-rayed and treated, Donna returns to the hostel and calls the organisers of the Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic. She explains to the main promoter that she will not be able to take part in the competition because of her injury and asks for the competition fee to be returned. The promoter informs her that there is nothing in the competition contract about return of fees in cases of withdrawal. Donna complains that skateboarding competition contracts usually allow return of moneys in circumstances like hers.
Advise Donna whether she can to take legal action against the Mount Bullfrog Reserve for her injury and against the promoter of the Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic for the return of the fees she has paid.Q8 Athena entered into a building contract with Bacchus Building Company Pty Ltd (BBC), a company owned and operated by Bacchus. The contract stipulated that BBC would build Athena a new garage at a cost of $15,000 and, further, that if the work was completed by 1 February, Athena would pay each of BBC's five employees an extra $250 by way of bonus. Bacchus inadvertently forgot to tell his employees anything about the bonuses. The garage was completed on 29 January. BBC then told its employees of the bonuses promised by Athena. The employees were delighted at the prospect of the extra funds. However, their joy was short-lived when Athena refused to pay the bonuses.Advise both the employees and BBC whether they could take legal action against Athena and what each is likely to recover. (Refer to general law principles only)
Q9 On 2 March 2015, Novak contracted to sell his North Ryde property to Rafael. A settlement date of 2 June 2015 was stipulated, with time being of the essence. Novak had troublesome tenants in the property whose lease expired on 31 May 2015. He served them with a notice to vacate the property by the end of May. Novak's intention was to transfer the property to Rafael with vacant possession on the stipulated settlement date.
On 25 May 2015, Novak rang Rafael and advised him that he could not settle the sale of the property on 2 June 2015 because the tenants had told him they would not leave on 31 May, but would wait until a court ordered their eviction. Novak also advised Rafael that he would be able to settle the sale as soon as the tenants left the property. At the time of the telephone call, Rafael's bank had not yet approved a loan application to enable him to complete the contract. He in fact had no prospect of having the funds by 2 June 2015.
Rafael seeks you advice as to whether he can immediately terminate the contract. Would your advice be different if at the time of Novak's telephone call on 25 May 2015, Rafael had no prospect of having a loan approved to finance the purchase of the North Ryde property?
Q10 Demi signs a contract with a tradesman, Ashton, to construct a timber and fibreglass roof over the back porch of her inner city terrace house for a total contract price of $10,000.
When Ashton finishes the job, rainwater enters the roof and causes the down lights to short circuit. Demi engages another tradesman, Zac, to replace the roof seals and fix the problem with the help of an electrician. Demi has to pay $2,700 for all the remedial work.
Demi is furious with Ashton and tells him he deserves to be paid nothing for all the trouble he caused her, including the repair work and her time and anxiety. However, she offers him $4,000 on a without prejudice basis to settle his account, adding that she will sue him for damages if he refuses to take the money.
Advise Ashton whether, and on what legal basis, he could recover more than $4,000 from Demi. (Refer to general law principles only)
Q11 Peter purchased two precision engineering machines from Paul and then leased them back to him. Under this arrangement Paul received $250,000 and was obligated to pay monthly lease payments to Peter for use of the machines. As a condition of the transaction, Paul's obligations under the leaseback agreement were guaranteed by Mary. At all times Peter and Mary believed that the machines existed, but in fact they did not exist. The whole transaction was a fraud perpetrated by Paul. After Paul defaulted on his payments under the leaseback agreement, Peter sought to recover the amount outstanding under the lease. Paul had, however, by that time been declared bankrupt. Peter then sought to recover from Mary under the guarantee agreement.
Mary seeks your advice as to whether the guarantee could be held void at common law. (Refer to general law principles only)
Q12 Anita is getting ready for the end of semester ball and takes her strapless taffeta ball gown to Lucy's Luxury Steam for dry cleaning. She tells Lucy that the ball gown needs to be cleaned and ready for her date with Jock, the president of the student body, who is taking her to the ball. Lucy takes the dress and carefully puts it on hangers. She then gives Anita a piece of paper with a number and some writing on it. Anita puts it in her purse and leaves the shop.
On the day before the ball is held, Anita attends the dry cleaning shop and is told by Lucy that the ball gown has not come through the dry cleaning process as expected. It has some large stains on the back and there has been damage to some of the beading on the gown's rim. Lucy says the gown must have been manufactured in some inferior factory and that she thinks the material is a cheap imitation of taffeta. When Anita starts crying and complaining, Lucy points out that the docket she gave to Anita refers to the shop's exclusion policy that is displayed on a large sign on the side wall of the shop. The sign says:
Dear Customers. Please note we take no responsibility for any loss or damage caused to any goods left for dry cleaning.
Q13&14 Athena entered into a building contract with Bacchus Building Company Pty Ltd 0313(2), a company owned and operated by Bacchus. The contract stipulated that BBC would build Athena a new garage at a cost of $15,000 and, further, that if the work was completed by 1 February, Athena would pay each of BBC's five employees an extra $250 by way of bonus. Bacchus inadvertently forgot to tell his employees anything about the bonuses. The garage was completed on 29 January. BBC then told its employees of the bonuses promised by Athena. The employees were delighted at the prospect of the extra funds. However, their joy was short-lived when Athena refused to pay the bonuses.
Advise both the employees and BBC whether they could take legal action against Athena and what each is likely to recover. (Refer to general law principles only)
Part (b)
On 2 March 2015, Novak contracted to sell his North Ryde property to Rafael. A settlement date of 2 June 2015 was stipulated, with time being of the essence. Novak had troublesome tenants in the property whose lease expired on 31 May 2015. He served them with a notice to vacate the property by the end of May. Novak's intention was to transfer the property to Rafael with vacant possession on the stipulated settlement
An+.
On 25 May 2015, Novak rang Rafael and advised him that he could not settle the sale of the property on 2 June 2015 because the tenants had told him they would not leave on 31 May, but would wait until a court ordered their eviction. Novak also advised Rafael that he would be able to settle the sale as soon as the tenants left the property. At the time of the telephone call, Rafael's bank had not yet approved a loan application to enable him to complete the contract. He in fact had no prospect of having the funds by 2 June 2015.
Rafael seeks you advice as to whether he can immediately terminate the contract. Would your advice be different if at the time of Novak's telephone call on 25 May 2015, Rafael had no prospect of having a loan approved to finance the purchase of the North Ryde property?
Q15 Novak and Rafael purchased land for the purpose of development, but then had a major disagreement over how to develop the land. After unsuccessful negotiations, Novak sent Rafael a letter in which he offered to buy Rafael's interest in the land for the sum of $500,000. The letter, dated 15 February 2012, included the following sentence:
This offer is open for only seven days from the date of this letter, and unless I have confirmation of your agreement to its terms within that time the offer will no longer be open for acceptance by you.
On 17 February 2012, Rafael posted a letter accepting the terms of the offer set out in Novak's letter. However, on the following day Rafael had a change of mind and telephoned Novak, telling him that he was not accepting the offer and that Novak should ignore the letter that Rafael had posted the day before. Novak received Rafael's letter of 17 February 2012 on 19 February 2012.
Novak seeks your advice as to whether there is a binding contract between himself and Rafael. How, if at all, would your advice differ if Novak's letter of 15 February 2012 had not included the sentence referred to above?
Q16 Ten years ago Brad and Jennifer began to live together as a de facto couple after Jennifer left her job as an accountant to start a family with Brad. Brad was a diamond trader whose business, despite some successful early years, had suffered a decline in recent times.
About five years ago Brad asked Jennifer to execute documents for a mortgage in favour of his bank to guarantee a loan for his business. Brad told Jennifer that this was a temporary safeguard and not to worry. Jennifer executed four more documents for the same purpose over the following four years on Brad's request. Jennifer was busy with her pregnancies and young children over that period of time and did not read the details of the contracts she signed. Jennifer and Brad own a waterfront home in Sydney, two luxury European cars and a holiday home in Port Macquarie, all of which provided security for the loans.
A few months ago Jennifer, as joint owner of the real estate and cars, received a notice that the bank was about to foreclose unless Brad's business debt, now totalling just over $2 million, was paid back to the bank. Jennifer claims that she did not know the extent of Brad's indebtedness and the amounts of money involved in any of the mortgages she had signed.
Jennifer seeks your advice as to whether she can have the guarantees set aside.
Q17 Robert is a prominent and wealthy businessman from Newcastle. Alicia, from Sydney, is a legal practitioner who was admitted to legal practice in 1999. Robert and Alicia met at a social function in 1997. Thereafter they kept in touch and, from time to time, when Robert was in Sydney on business, Alicia acted as his escort to various social and business functions.
In September 2001 Robert and Alicia entered into an arrangement under which Alicia agreed to give up her career as a lawyer and become Robert's mistress. The terms of the arrangement were that Alicia would maintain and look after Robert's penthouse in Sydney and would be available to Robert on Tuesday and Friday of each week, being the days when Robert was regularly in Sydney on business. Alicia was otherwise free to have other relationships and to do as she wished. In return, Robert agreed to pay Alicia $15,000 per week and to allow her to live rent-free in an apartment that he owned in Mosman, which he further agreed would be transferred to her absolutely if their arrangement was still in place 10 years later. Robert also agreed to pay Alicia $250,000, if and when he ended the arrangement.
In January 2012 Robert decided to end his relationship with Alicia. Although he had always paid Alicia her weekly payments he refused to transfer the Mosman unit to her or to pay her the agreed sum of $250,000. When Alicia pressed him on these matters, he told her he had received legal advice to the following effect: (i) Their 2001 arrangement was not a legally binding contract; (ii) Even if it was formed legally, it was an unlawful contract and void at common law.
Q18 Anna loves ice skating. She regularly skates at Macquarie lee Rink, but also likes to skate at any available rink wherever she happens to be in order to keep up her skating ability and fitness. She has skated at most rinks in Australia - both socially, and in competition.
The Macquarie Ice Rink displays a large sign mounted on a wall before the main entrance, which in big red letters includes the following words:
Patrons skate at their own risk. The Macquarie Ice Rink is not liable for any loss or injury howsoever caused.
Anna rushes in to skate one morning before the commencement of her university classes and pays her entrance fee to the cashier. As she is making her way towards the main rink in order to put on her skates, she slips in a large puddle of water, breaking her leg. The manager of the rink apologises to Anna for the water which was left carelessly on the floor, but advises her that the rink is not liable to compensate her for any damage she may have suffered because of the notice displayed at the entrance. Anna complains that the rink cannot avoid liability because when she entered the rink that morning the sign - normally visible - was obscured by tinsel left over from a staff party the night before.
After attending the local hospital and having her broken leg set in plaster, Anna returns home and calls the new Central Coast Ice Skating Rink. She has been training for a competition that was to be held there next week, and has already registered and paid the competition fee. She was looking forward to skating there for the first time. Anna explains that as her leg is broken she will not be able to skate and asks for the competition fee to be returned. The Central Coast Ice Skating Rink attendant informs her that there is nothing in the competition contract about return of fees in cases of misadventure. Anna complains that the contracts she has signed in other ice-skating competitions always allow return of moneys in circumstances like hers.
Q19 Gaga leased certain commercial premises to Beyonce for a term of six years. A few months after the lease was entered into, Beyonce sub-let part of the premises to Rihanna for a period of four years. It was an express term of the written sub-lease that Beyonce had the right to terminate it at any time during its term by giving at least four weeks' notice in writing to Rihanna. At the time the sub-lease was executed, Beyonce gave a verbal assurance to Rihanna that she would not terminate the sub-lease unless her own lease with Gaga was terminated. Two years later Beyonce gave Rihanna notice in writing requiring her to vacate the premises, even though Gaga had not terminated the lease with Beyonce.
Advise Rihanna whether, and on what basis, she could enforce Beyonce's promise under the law of contract.
(Ignore any possible estoppel issue in your answer)
Q20 Adam is a 17-year old golf champion in his NSW age group. He is being trained and managed by Jock, a former Australian golf professional who has won several national and international tournaments and who now runs a golf academy. When he was 15, Adam signed an agreement with Jock, who believed Adam had world class potential, in the presence of his father and the secretary of his local golf club. At the time, they were all very pleased to obtain the services of Jock for a five-year term, despite his high fees.
Adam's training has been proceeding well, and he has attracted attention not only for his prowess on the golf green, but also his attractive and youthful image. A sportswear company wishes to engage him for a series of promotional campaigns that will feature him wearing their gear. However, Jock has told Adam in no uncertain terms that he will not consent to Adam's involvement in such a campaign. Jock argues that this will interfere with the discipline and training required for Adam to succeed at the highest level of golf. He insists Adam is to concentrate only on golf and that he is to have no alternative sources of income.
When Adam and his father check the contract, they see that the terms give Jock the power to stop Adam from engaging in any other money-making activities. Upon reading the terms carefully, they also see that, in addition to his fees as trainer, Jock is guaranteed 40% of all of Adam's earnings from golf competitions after he toms 18.
Adam is upset that he can't participate in the promotional campaign, which he believes will help his ambition to become a golfing celebrity. He is also angry that he was not aware of the MI details of the agreement when it was signed.
Advise Adam as to whether he could have the contract with Jock set aside on the grounds that:
a) he did not realise what he was getting into when he was 15
b) the contract is very unfair in comparison with the agreements his other sporting friends have signed.
Q21 Hole in the Ground Mining Ltd (HGM) has a contract with Happy New Dawn Ltd (HND) for the export of coal worth $150m. In view of the international financial situation, HGM has kept its profit margin very low in order to secure the contract and in that way ensure continuing business with I-IND and other similar companies in the Asia-Pacific region.
After the contract is formed, the Australian government introduces a range of environmental taxes and stringent licensing requirements for the export of coal and related products. The HGM board of directors realizes that the company's slight profit margin will completely disappear and that it stands to make a huge loss on the project if it were to proceed. It contacts HND and seeks to renegotiate the deal. However, HND insists on the delivery of the coal proceeding.
HGM seeks your advice on whether it can be relieved of its obligations because the new taxes and licensing requirements mean the contract is no longer capable of performance as agreed.
Q22 Edward contracted to hire Victoria's luxurious yacht for use on 19 October. In his letter to Victoria, Edward wrote the following: My whole family loves boats and on 19 October, the world's largest and most luxurious passenger liner, Titanic IV, arrives in Sydney for the first time. Not only will we have a wonderful day enjoying Sydney's glorious harbour, but we shall also be witnessing a truly historic event at close range. On 10 October, for reasons unknown, Titanic IV sank as it was making its way across the Pacific Ocean towards Australia. Edward seeks your advice as to what impact, if any, the sinking of Titanic IV has on his contract with Victoria. (Refer to general law principles only)
Q23 In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107, Brennan J said: "It is submitted that the doctrine of privity sometimes produces unjust results and that this Court should reexamine it in the light ofthe criticisms the doctrine has attracted." How would you explain the doctrine of privity and what are the unjust results referred to by Brennan J? Describe one way in which the unjust result was circumvented in the Trident case.
Q24 Zhang and his wife run a fruit and vegetable supermarket at the Western Supacenta. They lease the premises from Mega-Mall Ltd. They have a very poor grasp of English and little business experience. However, they have registered a small private company, of which they are the sole director shareholders, through which they run their business. Although Zhang is up to date with rent, he has been late with the payments on a couple ofoccasions. When it was time to renew the lease, the Supacenta manager Fred came to see Zhang in the company of a security guard. Fred said: "I've got your new lease. The rent and outgoings have gone up by 25%. Don't complain because Mega-Mall have a new property manager and he is upset you have been late with payments. Sign the new lease by tomorrow lunch time." Zhang replied: "No, this no good. I must have time to see solicitor. I don't understand this paper." Fred replied: "Just sign it by tomorrow or you will have to get out - and Mega-Mall will sue you for making late payments. That's it." Zhang again protests but at that point the security guard grabbed him by the collar and slammed the envelope containing the lease on the shop counter. Zhang stops talking and takes the envelope. The guard lets go of Zhang's shirt collar and leaves the shop with Fred. Zhang and his wife are upset but they sign the lease because they are afraid oflosing their shop. After a few months Zhang can no longer afford the high rent and seeks legal advice
. On what basis could Zhang seek to set aside the lease? {Refer to statutory provisions and general law principles)
Q25 Adam signed a contract to build a timber and fibreglass roof over the back porch of Chloe's inner city terrace house for a total contract price of $ 10,000. When Adam finished the job, Chloe complained that rainwater entered the roof and caused the down lights to short circuit. Chloe engaged another tradesman, Beau, to replace the roof seals and fix the problem with the help of an electrician. She had to pay $2,700 for all the remedial work. Chloe is furious with Adam and tells him he deserves to be paid nothing for all the trouble he caused her. However, she offers him $4,000 on a without prejudice basis to settle his account, adding that she will sue him for damages If he refuses to take the money.
Advise Ashton whether, and on what legal basis, he could recover more than $4,000 from Demi. {Refer to general law principles only)
Q26 Heidi is a young employed solicitor in the law firm Fox & Sly, which has a Sydney city office and branches in two NSW country towns. When she got the job, she signed an employment agreement with the partners. It included a clause in which she promised that, if she left the firm, she would not work as an employed solicitor, or set up her own legal practice: 2
a) for a period of six years from her departure
b) in any premises within twenty kilometres of any of the offices of Fox & Sly. Heidi now wishes to quit the firm and get a better job with a legal practice that has an office in a small country town 15 kilometres from one of Fox & Sly's branches.
Discuss whether and to what extent Heidi could be bound by the clause in the employment agreement with Fox & Sly.
Q27 Mary and her husband Joseph sign a contract to sell their beautiful suburban cottage to Larry for $750,000. Larry pays $75,000 to their agent by way of deposit. One of the terms of the contract is that settlement will take place after 12 weeks in order to give Larry time to organise his finance. This is because Larry has told them he has complicated financial holdings through overseas managed funds and he needs a longer period of time to settle. Two days before the settlement date, Larry rings Mary and says he needs extra time because one of the trustees of an overseas company in which he has shares has been ill and failed to organise part of the settlement funds on time. Mary and Joseph reluctantly agree to give Larry extra time. Their solicitor serves Larry with a notice to complete. The notice sets a new time for settlement in 28 days with ‘time of the essence'. On the day before the new settlement date, Larry again rings Mary and asks for more time because an amount ofmoney he was expecting to come from one ofhis investments in the Cayman Islands did not come through on time. Mary speaks with her solicitor who advises her not to agree. The solicitor attends the scheduled settlement time but no one attends on behalf of Larry. The solicitor waits for 10 minutes and then leaves. Mary and Joseph terminate the contract and claim the deposit. Larry threatens to take them to court.
Advise Mary and Joseph about their prospects for claiming the deposit.
Q28 Lester wanted to sign a lease for 12 months on a large showroom in Pyrmont to conduct a series of book sales. However, he was afraid that he would not be able to afford all the monthly repayments if business was slow. He told the landlord Gabor that he would only sign the lease if Gabor promised Lester could terminate the agreement early because of financial pressures. The lease had no express term addressing the possibility of early termination. Gabor agreed just before the lease was signed. After six months, Lester's business was struggling to achieve enough sales but Gabor refused to allow early termination. Advise Lester how he could enforce Gabor's promise under contract law. {Refer to general law principles only)