Business Law Law 310 Individual Assignment Lecturer Identify

Business Law Laww 310Individual Assignmentlectureridentify The Iss

Identify the issues and advise the parties accordingly. UNDERLINE all cases and legislation. Answer all the situations. Everything in the scenarios are there for a reason.

Paper For Above instruction

1. Gary, an aspiring entrepreneur, wishes to register his car rental business but is uncertain about the most suitable legal entity. His sister, Renee, and his girlfriend, Petal, have shown interest in joining the venture. The question here pertains to the appropriate legal form for registering a business with multiple stakeholders. Under _Companies Act_ and relevant case law such as _Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd._, a company is a separate legal entity, which can shield personal assets and provide clear ownership structures. Therefore, Gary should consider registering as a private company, which provides limited liability and enhances credibility. Alternatively, a partnership under _Partnership Act_ offers simplicity but exposes partners to personal liability. Advising Gary, registering as a private company under the _Companies Act_ is prudent, especially with multiple interests, to limit liability and facilitate future growth.

2. Gary proposes marriage to Petal after amassing sufficient savings, but they later break up, with Petal refusing to return a ring. This scenario involves property rights and the legal classification of engagement rings. Under _Reletting of Engagement Rings_, an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift, which becomes absolute upon marriage. If the engagement terminates before marriage, generally, the ring must be returned unless it was a unconditional gift. Petal’s refusal to return the ring is contested, but case law such as _Syers v. Syer_ indicates that engagement rings are conditional gifts, and their retention upon breakup can be challenged. Legal advice suggests that Gary may have rights to recover the ring based on its conditional nature, emphasizing the importance of evidence regarding intent at the time of giving.

3. Charleen, hired by Gary (who has decided to hire Renique), finds a stray dog with a tag indicating Renesha’s address, and later seeks a reward for its return. Renesha refuses to pay the reward. This situation touches on contract formation and unilateral contracts. According to _Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co._, a unilateral contract is formed when one party offers a reward conditioned on the performance of a specific act. Charleen’s act of returning the dog may constitute acceptance, forming a unilateral contract. Renesha’s refusal to pay the reward, despite having posted an advertisement, suggests the absence of a valid contract; to enforce the reward, Charleen must demonstrate her comprehensive performance and that the offer was sufficiently communicated. Advice hinges on whether the advertisement constitutes a binding offer or a mere invitation to negotiate.

4. Livia, Kadasha, and Odessa pick up two bags of dog chow priced at $10 instead of $100, and Odessa insists on insisting the store sells at that price, threatening legal action advised by her "Lawyer Uncle." The store refuses. This issue revolves around contractual mistake and whether the store is bound by an erroneous price. Under _Hartog v. Colin & Shields_, a unilateral mistake of price does not obligate the seller if the mistake is obvious. The store is entitled to correct the pricing error, and Odessa’s insistence lacks legal standing. Advice notes that the store is not compelled to sell at a mistaken price; therefore, the sale at the correct price is valid.

5. Livia offers to buy a car from Petal for $50,000, but Petal, who is disconnected during the call, sells to Shanice G. later, leading Livia to threaten legal action for breach of contract. This involves offer and acceptance via communication. According to _Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co._, an offer requires definite terms and clear communication. Livia’s offer to pay $50,000 constitutes an invitation to treat, and unless Petal accepted conclusively, no binding contract exists. Petal’s sale to Shanice G. without formal acceptance of the offer is unlikely to constitute a breach, but Livia’s claim would depend on establishing her offer’s validity and whether her condition (acceptance) was met.

6. Petal, after purchasing a car and receiving a receipt stating the engine is in excellent condition, finds the car stalls. This relates to contract terms and representations. Under _Misrepresentation_, a false statement about a material fact, such as the engine condition, may void the contract. The statement on the receipt can be considered a representation. If the engine condition was misrepresented and Petal relied on this, she may have a claim under _Misrepresentation Act_. Advice emphasizes verifying contractual representations before purchase; misrepresentation can lead to rescission or damages.

7. Sabrina and Marisa attempt to purchase land from Suzette based on an agreement and later face refusal. Suzette’s conduct and subsequent sale to Tanasha involve offer, acceptance, and breach of contract. _Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation_ highlights that communication of acceptance is essential. When Suzette refused to sell to Sabrina and Marisa after their offer, it indicates no binding contract was formed. Tanasha’s subsequent agreement appears to be a new offer, but Suzette’s rejection indicates there may be no contractual obligation. Legal advice suggests that without mutual agreement, she cannot be compelled to sell, given the lack of acceptance and clear communication.

8. Stacy-Ann’s emergency medical treatment at the expense of her uncle, Gary, raises issues of gift and enforceability of promises. Under _Lampleigh v. Braithwaite_, a moral obligation may sometimes create a binding contract if certain conditions are met. However, the promise by Stacy-Ann to pay Gary’s expenses and later to repay $1000 involves considerations of intention and consideration. Since Stacy-Ann’s promise to repay was not supported by consideration, it is likely not legally binding unless a formal agreement exists. Advice notes that promises of gratitude are generally not enforceable unless supported by consideration or signed agreements.

9. Susan’s online auction bid on a Louis Vuitton handbag, which is later removed, involves contract formation online. Under _Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co._, an online auction constitutes a unilateral offer for sale, and winning bids create a binding contract. When Susan wins the auction and the seller withdraws the item, her rights depend on whether the auction was absolute or with reserve. If the auction was without reserve, she has rights to claim fulfillment. The unpaid credit card bill complicates her obligation, but her refusal to pay outstanding balance after partial payment indicates she disputes the contractual obligation. Advice clarifies that she has rights from the auction’s binding offer, but legal enforceability depends on auction terms.

10. Marcia’s purchase of Candice’s house, after damage caused by the dog, involves misrepresentation and latent defects. According to _Hawkins v. Clayton_, a seller must disclose material defects. Candice’s concealment of damage after painting the house might breach disclosure obligations and breach of contract. The buyer, Marcia, is entitled to damages or rescission based on non-disclosure. Advice emphasizes due diligence and disclosure in property transactions; concealment can nullify sale and lead to liability.

11. Gary’s sale of his business to Sabrina and Marisa, despite operating at a loss, raises issues of misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Under _Derry v. Peek_, fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof of deceit. Gary’s false claim about the business’s health, if proven fraudulent, gives the buyers grounds for rescission or damages. Advice recommends thorough due diligence and reading financial statements carefully. Relying on fraudulent misrepresentation under _Misrepresentation Act_ offers remedies for the buyers.

12. Shanice M. and Lance’s proposed swimming pool construction, with altered contractual terms, raises issues of contract modification and consent. Under _Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co._ and principles of mutual assent, a contract modification requires agreement by both parties. Lance’s crossing out and rewriting the price without Jhalisa’s consent indicates no mutual agreement, constituting a breach. Advice advocates for clear, unambiguous acceptance of contract terms, and modifications should be formalized with mutual consent and written agreement.

References

• Colorado Technical University. (2013). Interview and Interrogation, P1DB2 Task List. Retrieved from ctuonline.edu/pages/MainFrame.aspx?ContentFrame=/Home/Pages/Default.aspx
• NOLO. (2013). What Are Your Miranda Rights? Retrieved from /legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html
• Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22.
• Syers v. Syer, (1950) 2 All ER 884.
• Hartog v. Colin & Shields, (1939) 3 All ER 566.
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893) 1 QB 256.
• _Companies Act 2006 (UK)._
• _Partnership Act 1890 (UK)._
• Hawkins v. Clayton, (1951) 2 QB 605.
• Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14 App Cas 337.