Australian Constrict Law Sole Trader

Question: Discuss about the Australian Constrict Law of Sole Trader. Answer: Assignment A Care Hire Business was carried on by Steve as a sole trader. The business was not run as a corporation. Issue Whether Tom can sue Steve for the damages sustained by him in the form of loses $ 5000 per day in profits? Law Since the relationship that existed amid Steve and Tom is commercial in nature thus the law under Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is applicable. Section 18 of the Act submits that when any person when is engaged in any trade or commerce activity then he must not undertake activities that are deceptive or misleading in nature or is likely to do the same. If any person is found to be contravention of section 18 of the Act then he is liable to pay remedies to the aggrieved party in the form of damages or termination of contract. The scope of section 18 of the Act is found in Google Inc v ACCC (2013). (Clark J 2016) In common law, if any person makes a misrepresentation (a statement of fact) and induces the other person to establish contract with him, then such contract is suffered by misrepresentation and the aggrieved party has right to terminate the contract and claim damages. (The Law HandBook 2016) Application Tom seeks information from Steve before making contract with him. He specifically submitted that he needs a truck which can carry 10 tons of cargo. Steve induces Tom by stating that the truck provided by him can carry 12 tons of cargo. He misrepresented Tom and his conduct was deceptive and misleading in nature. Thus, Tom has every right to sue Steve. Conclusion Tom can sue Steve for misrepresentation and deception and can terminate the contract and claim damages and the losses so sustained by him. Issue whether there exist a valid contract amid Pamela and Steve? Law A contract is an agreement which can be enforced by law only when it is made by the compilation of all ingredients, such as, offer, acceptance, consideration and intention. An offer is the intention of the offeror to an offeree which he expects to be confirmed by such an offeree and is called acceptance. Offer and acceptance makes an agreement. (Clark J 2016) An agreement must be supported by some benefit or gain which is exchanged amid the parties for the promises so fulfilled by them. This benefit is consideration in law. A consideration is valid only when it is made for the promises yet to be performed. There is no scope of past consideration in the contract law of Australia and is held in Roscorla v Thomas (1842). (Moles R 1998) Application Now, Pamela was performing the action of watering in the garden of Steve on her own will. There was nothing from Steve sides to compel Pamela to do the same. It was later that Steve promised Pamela that he will provide her with his act against the actions that were taken by her. But, the promise was made after the action was performed by Pamela. Thus, the consideration promised by Steve was past in nature. Conclusion Thus, Pamela cannot sue Steve and there is no contract amid the two as the consideration was past and is invalid in nature. Issues Whether Danny can sue Steve for breach of contract? Law In the law of contract, when all contract essentials are fulfilled by the offeror and the offeree then a valid contract exist amid the two. However, any valid contract can cease to exist under various situations, such as, by performance, by frustration, by agreement, by law, etc. (FindLaw 2016) One of the ground upon which a contract comes to an end is frustration. Frustration occurs when the contract ends because of some supervening event which is not in control of the parties Taylor v Caldwell(1863) (Clark J 2016). Some of the instances under which a contract is terminated on account of frustration are natural disaster, destruction of matter, war, death of the person, incapacity, etc. (Jaani 2016) Application A contract was made amid Danny and Steve wherein Steve has to provide a car to Dannay. However he was not aware while making the contract that the car was already destroyed. Thus, the subject matter of contract was not in existence when the contract was made and thus the contract was void on account of frustration. Conclusion Hence, Danny cannot sue Steve as the contract was already not valid and is terminated on the ground of frustration. Issues Whether Steve is bound by the contract made by him with Trisha? Law The two most important elements in the law of contract are offer and acceptance. An offer is the communication which is made by an offeror to an offeree under which he communicates his desires and expects an approval of the same (Gibson v Manchester City Council - CA (1978). When the offeree after understating the offer made to him accepts the same without any variations then such confirmation is called acceptance Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877). In order to make a valid acceptance it is necessary that it must confirm the exact terms of the offer and must not bring any variation to the same. Also, an acceptance is only complete when it is communicated to an offeror (Powell v Lee (1908). (The Law Teacher 2016) However, when an acceptance is made to an offer which was never intended by an offeree then such kinds of acceptances are not valid as the same were never intended by the offeree and is held in R v Clarke(1927). Knowledge of offer is not sufficient to make a valid acceptance but the offer must intent to make an acceptance in order to make such an acceptance valid and legal in law. Application Now, Trisha has made an offer to Steve which was not accepted by him initially. Under mistake he sends his confirmation to the offer made by Trisha. But, the acceptance made by Steve was under mistake and he never intended to abide by the same. Thus, such acceptance has no valid in law and is suffered by mistake an dos thus not enforceable in law. Conclusion So Trisha cannot force Steve to bind by the contract. Reference list Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877). Clark J, 2016, Australian Constrict Law, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/avoidance-misleading.html Clark J, 2016, Australian Constrict Law- formation, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html Clark J, 2016, termination-frustration, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/termination-frustration.html. Findlaw, 2016, how can contracts be discharged from further performance, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4551/how-can-contracts-be-discharged-from-further-perfo.aspx. (Gibson v Manchester City Council - CA (1978). Google Inc v ACCC (2013). Jaani, 2016, Termination by Frustration, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.jaani.net/resources/law_notes/contracts/11_Termination_by_frustration.pdf Moles R, 1998, Consideration, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://netk.net.au/Contract/04Consideration.asp. Powell v Lee (1908). Roscorla v Thomas (1842). R v Clarke(1927). Taylor v Caldwell(1863) The Law HandBook, 2016, Misrepresentation, Retrieved on 12th August 2016 from https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02s10.php