Business Law Assignment - Legal Problems - Law Assessment Answer

1. No. Bill will not be required to pay Anne the remaining $1,500.
2. My answer would not have changed if they agreed that Bill will would pay the $4,000 on 12th December 2015. Anne had promised Bill that she would not sue him for not paying $1,500. Instead, Bill was only required to pay the $4,000 by 1st January 2016. The Australian Law recognizes a promise to be legally binding. The purpose of doing this is to protect the people who make promises to other people and break them eventually. The agreement made between Bill and Anne was made through a promise that Anne had given to Bill. However, Anne broker her promise and went ahead to sue Bill for failing to pay the remainder of the money amounting to $1,500. Anne had promised to forget that remainder of the cash if Bill paid $4,000 on 1st January 2016 (Rowan, 2010). The fact that Anne broke her promise by suing Bill, means that she would still have sued him even if Bill would have paid the money by 12th December 2015. There are laws in place that protect Bill against acts such as the ones that were done by Anne. Bill was prepared to pay $4,000 at the agreed time, which was 1st January 2016. However, Bill had the knowledge that Anne would not sue him for failing to pay the remainder of the money. Anne broke her promise and decided to sue Bill instead (Dooling, 2011). Bill can take the necessary action by counter suing Anne as well. He can sue Anne for breaking her promise to him. In a court of law, Anne would not stand a chance in winning the case because she promised to do the contrary of what she did.

The sale contracts are made in a manner that they specify the amount of money to be submitted and in the required currency. It is crucial for contracts contain this information for clarity purposes. However, there are contracts that do not specify this information when they are developed. In Australia, all sale contracts are assumed to be conducted in Australian Dollars. This is the case unless otherwise specified in the contract (Hawthorne, 2012). In the case between Erik and Michael, Erik had a right to sue Michael for making the payment for the car in Hong Kong Dollars. The sale contract drawn up between the two of them did not specify the exact currency to be used. However, the sale agreement was made within the Australian boundaries. The contracts did not specify the currency that would be used in the transaction process. Because the sale agreement was made in Australia, it is expected that the currency to be used is Australian Dollars. This is the standard currency that is used within the country. For this reason, Erik can move to court to seek legal action against Michael for making the purchase payment in the form of Hong Kong Dollars. This can be categorized as a breach of contract on his part. On the other hand, Erik did not bother to check that the money was handed to him in the envelope by Michael. Legally, this can amount to negligence on his part (Alex, 2006). Under the law, negligence cannot be treated as a form of defence against an offence that has been committed. Erik should have taken the time to examine the contents of the envelope to determine whether the money paid to him was in the correct format. This is termed as due diligence, which was the responsibility of Erik. However, Michael was in breach of contract because he did not observe the basic legal requirements and make the payment for the vehicle in Australian Dollars. Also, Erik should be fined for not conducting due diligence and inspect the contents of the envelope.

Before entering into a contract, it is always advisable that you first become well acquainted with all the contents of the contract. In this example, George failed to thoroughly read through the terms and conditions carefully before entering into the contract (Ron, 2011). For this reason, he was not aware of the consequences that would be incurred if he did not return the borrowed DVD in good time. According to the contract, it does not factor in the possibility that a customer may become ill and unable to return the DVD at the stipulated time. Therefore, the owner of the shop is right in demanding the penalty from George for not returning the DVD at the set time. Every business is unique to each other. The shop owner may have a reason for charging such a high amount of money as penalty fees. The reason for doing this may vary from one business to another. For example, the owner of the shop could be doing this within then intention of discouraging people from overstaying with borrowed DVDs. Overstaying with the DVDs would mean that the owner would not be able to rent the DVDs to other customers who may wish the same DVDs (Aviva and Webb, 2010). This will translate into a loss of revenue for the business. The shop owner was charging a total of $20 per day for a rented DVD. This figure seems to be a bit high, but George has no right to question it or oppose it. This is because George agreed to enter into the contract without conducting his due diligence on the contract. George became ill and unable to return the DVD. In this case, George is obligated to pay the requested amount to the shop owner.

1. The damage that took place in the car yard could have been avoided if the security company had conducted due diligence on their part. Because this is a car yard, there is a high probability that there would be oil spills on the ground. If the security guard would have had this knowledge, he would not have thrown the lit cigarette on the ground. Instead, he would have taken extreme caution in disposing it off (Hogg, 2009). Referring to the clause that has been stated in the contract by the security company, the company would have taken the necessary action to train their employees on any risk hazards they may face while executing their duties. This is a car yard, the security company should have assigned a non-smoking guard to patrol the premises. For this reason, Grant can file a case suit against Eagle Eye for negligence.
2. The clause the Eagle Eye shall not be responsible for any damage or loss will provide a road block in the legal suit against them. This clause exempts the company from any damage that could have taken place in the car yard. Grant signed this contract with the intention of securing his car yard (Joshua, 2009). The solution would have been that Grant should have done due diligence on the contract and ensure that he has read all the fine print details and clauses (Moir, 2013). This means that Grant cannot make a claim in a court of law. I would advise Grant to engage in negotiations with the security company and come up with a suitable deal that will work for both of them.