Part A: Contracts Law Question
The case belongs to the case of contract law. The question asks about the concept of mere representation. In the give problem, a man 5 years ago introduced him as the Trevor Hunt though it was his false identity, but he initially represents him as the owner (Eldridge, 2019). Co incidentally the local newspaper had Lalo’s new about him, so the assesse, who is the owner of museum, get confused. The defendant had sales an antique of $200000 to Mr Lace Lincoln by saying that hr crockery and antiques belong to the antiques of Gavotte (Nottage, 2016). Now the issue had raised can Mr. Lace file sue against the Tremor or can claim compensation against the fraud or not
Thaw whole study move around the mere representation. Mere representation means a person intentionally represent himself be the personality who he is not. The intention of the person is not true or of the fraud conscious (Cantatore, & Johnston, 2016). Mere representation is not the term of the contract. It is just the intention of doing the contract.
As per the section 18 of the Australia Law the mere representation gives the intention to the contract party to do the contract (Sims, 2012). The party who had face, bosses can claim damages under the common law r the statue law of Australia. The section 18 also defines the contract fraud in the concepts of trade.
The section 2 of the competition and consumer act gives the power of the remedies to the deceptive party for the purpose of the trade.
- There must be oral contract between both the parties
- The defaulter party had belief on the three part was in the true terms
- Bothe parties should be in the capacity of doing contract.
- No other terms of the contract be in the contradict to the contract
- The party who had face damages should have done proper research before making contract
Australian Contract Law deal with legal imposition of promises which have been made a part of bargain, so both parties can freely have entered into establishment of a legal relationship is called a contract. Contract has included all necessary information which has also involved breaches and remedies for shareholders of that contract.
AS per the section 18 of ghee Australian Law which deals with the mere representation. The party Mr Trevor can be found to be guilty if the following condition boos fulfilled:
- he intentionally represents him as the Mr Troy as the owner of the museum in the Gavotte,
- the intention of Tremor was not known to the Mr. Lace
- HE had examined the goods to be the antique before making contract
- The reason of the trust was in the good faith
- The price of the contract is the last and negotiable price
- Mr. Lace have the proof of the contract with the Trey or
The contract between the Mr Tremor and Lace Lincoln can be sue in the court on the following basis
The time when Mr. Lace comes to know that the antiques are not real and by fraud they are sold to him
The point when the intention of Mr. Trevor was found to be deceptive nature
When the news of arrest of Mr. Tremor comes to know by Mr. Lace (Spagnolo, 2013).
The earlier among the above 3 can be the time when Mr. Lace can file the case against the Mr. Trevor (Riley, 2012).
The contract was done between thaw MR Trevor and Mr. Lace, the price of the contract was $20000, and the abject was the antiques from the museum of Gavotte.
- Tremor with the fake personality introduced himself with MR Lace and with the intention of fraud entered the contract with MR. Lace. The contract was done by the Mr Lace on the basis of the mere representation and he was not aware of the intention of fraud by Mr. Tremor. After the contract Mr. Tremor comes to know that the antiques are not real and they are obtained by the fraud. So now the <R. Lace can file the against at the earlier of the point, when he comes o know the intention of MR. Trevone, or when he found that the crockery is not an ancient or when the news of fraud by the MR. Trevor published in the television.
Mr. Lace can sue Mr. Trevor if the all the constiotpon of the section 18 of the Australian law had fulfilled and can claim the compensation against the fraud.
Part B: Corporations Law question
The Kellie and her friends cumulatively decide that they should open the company. As they were required the capital of 40000. All the friends suggested that they should contribute the equal amount. With the intention of the company the friends had filed an application with the registrar for the incorporation of the company (Marshall, & Ramsay, 2012). But later on all the friends of the Kellie had moved back and did not contribute the amount. With the time period, the friends had order some of the raw material for the import of the business. Now the issue had been arising either the Kellie or the friends can liable for the contract made on the behalf of the company or either company can be sued for the agreement done by the exporters (Williams, 2012).
The given case study will accumulate the section of the Corporation Act 2001, of the Australia. As per the section 128, of the said act certain some assumptions regarding the corporation of the company. The basic assumption proves that the company can found to be guilty after getting the incorporation (Matthew, 2015). It also states that company will not be bound for any contract done before incorporation/
The section 131 of the corporation act deals with the contract done before incorporation of the company:
- If the person, who are having the intention of incorporation of company, are entered in the contract s with any third party, then the company may be bound to contract but for that the application of the incorporation had been filed to the registrar (Graham, & Unit, 2012).
- If the breach is done between the time period of the application and the incorporation, company will be liable only after the date of incorporation. If the company fails to incorporate, then the founders of the company will found to be guilty
- And after the incorporation, the existing contract should be revised or the rectified. If the company or the other party fails to rectify the contract after prescribed time by the registrar, then company will not be bound for such contract done before obtaining certificate of incorporation (Brown, & OBE, 2012).
- If the company had not found guilty then the founder or director after incorporation will be found guilty for the breach the terms and condition of the contract.
The section 136 of the corporation act deals with the condition of the constitution o the company. Company will found to be constituted only of the following conditions are found to be complete:
The persons who are founder of the company give their consent in writing with the application of the company incorporation to the registrar/
After the application, the promoters had passed special resolution and had signed the resolution. The person who had given consent should be present at the time of the passing resolution for the constitution of the company
The directors are found to be guilty in any case or the breach of eh condition of the contract. Only if they are found to be act done in the intention of the feud or misrepresentation. If the intentions are lawful and without being fraud. The company will found to be guilty only after abstaining the letter of the incorporation and the passing the special revolution.
Australian Corporation Law has been established in terms of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Each country has their own legislature and as per Australia it will closely developed in English Law. Corporation Law is based on costs, which has been built between States and companies, Government and policies of each state have been developed in separate lines.
In the given case the act of the corporation act, 2001 will be applied there are certain condition s which are found to be studied with the above sections
Kellie had done the contract with the parties for the raw material, I the capacity of the company prior to the obtaining letter of the incorporation. So in the given situation a theory of the assumption will be valid that the contract will be ratify after the obtaining the certificate. Till the Date Kellie had the port of entering the contract.
All the friends of the Kellie had denied to contribute for the capital of the company due to the reason one or other. But all the friends had applied for the registrar and given the consent to the registrar for obtaining the certificate. So it can be said that if there is any breach all of the friends will be liable for the contract until the certificate regrets the letter of the incorporation
The Kellie after knowing the facts that no friends are contributing capital money, did not cancel the application to the registrar, and had the tension of company incorporation (Brown, & Dent, 2017).
After having certificate of the incorporation, the Kellie can be found to be rectify all the contract in terms of the condition if Kellie fails to rectify the contract she will be personally liable for the breach, or if the rectification had done the company will be found liable for all the breach of the contract.
In the given case study Kellie and friends are found to be liable for the breach of the condition before the contract done in the capacity of the contact until the company found the certificate of the incorporation
After having the letter of the incorporation the Kellie who had initally left as the director are found to be guilty for all the acts done after incorporation
After the incorporation the company have to rectify the contact done prior the certificate or after filing the application, if contracts are not rectified they are found to be void, neither company nor director of the companies are liable for ant breach of the condition
The friends and Kellie all had filed an application before the registrar for the company incorporation certificate, and later the friends of the Kellie had denied so the Kellie can claim the friends in the basis of the breach of contract and not contributing the money to the incorporation
Even the Kellie can sue all of them for not entering the contract.
Brown, M., & Dent, C. (2017). Privacy concerns over employer access to employee social media. Monash UL Rev., 43, 796.
Brown, P., & OBE, B. A. (2012). Australian influence in the South Pacific. Australian Defence Force Journal, 189(27), 66-78.
Cantatore, F., & Johnston, J. (2016). Moral rights: Exploring the myths, meanings and misunderstandings in Australian copyright law. Deakin L. Rev., 21, 71.
Eldridge, J. A. (2019). Codifying Contract Law in Australia: Issues and Obstacles (Doctoral dissertation).
Graham, O., & Unit, P. (2012). Australian Trade Unions: An Alternate Regulatory Approach.
Marshall, S., & Ramsay, I. (2012). Stakeholders and directors’ duties: Law, theory and evidence. UNSWLJ, 35, 291.
Matthew, A. (2015). The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?. Insolvency Law Journal, 23, 116-135.
Nott age, L. (2016). The Government’s Proposed Review of Australia’s Contract Law: An Interim Positive Response. In Codifying Contract Law (pp. 131-164). Routledge.
Riley, J. (2012). Siblings but Not Twins: Making Sense of Mutual Trust and Good Faith in Employment Contracts. Melb. UL Rev., 36, 521.
Sims, A. (2012). Unfair contract terms: A new dawn in Australia and New Zealand. Monash UL Rev., 39, 739.
Spagnolo, L. (2013). Law Wars: Australian Contract Law Reform vs. CISG vs. CESL. Vill. L. Rev., 58, 623.
Williams, R. (2012). Enlightened shareholder value in UK company law. UNSWLJ, 35, 360.