Analysis of Law Cases - Assignment Example

Question Mei, Ying and Yang all worked for the same employer. One day Mei suggested that all three should jointly purchase a lottery ticket. The others agreed and Ying and Yang each ave Mei $10 and Mei purchased a ticket in her name. Ying and Yang told Mei they only wanted to buy the one ticket as they were not gamblers. Mei agreed. To everyone's surprise the ticket won a minor prize of $120. Mei suggested to the others that they should use the $120 to invest in a weekly ticket for the next four weeks. The others reluctantly agreed. For the next four weeks no further prizes were won. Mei said to the others she would "buy one last ticket on behalf of them all". This ticket won $250,000. Mei refused to share the winnings. Discuss. Offer: Mei's suggestion that they should jointly buy a lottery ticket, and Ying and Yang's agreeing to it is a simple verbal contract. The next instance i.e, investing the prize in a weekly ticket for the next four weeks also falls into the same category. However, Mei's proposal that she would "buy one last ticket on behalf of them" cannot be considered as an offer or a contract, for there is no clear mention of any terms and doesn't bear any intention to be bound by those terms. Acceptance: When Mei suggested that they should jointly purchase a lottery ticket, Ying and Yang agreed to it. So, it can be regarded as an oral acceptance of Mei's offer. Again, when Mei suggested that they should invest the prize of $120 in a weekly ticket for the next four weeks, Ying and Yang agreed to it. This is also a verbal acceptance of the contract. But Mei's offer to "buy one last ticket on behalf of them all" after failing to win any prize in the next four weeks is just like a formal treat. There is no verbal or written contract and acceptance here. Rejection: Mei's offerd to "buy one last ticket on behalf of them all", but when it fetched a prize of $250,000 she changed her mind and refused to share the winnings. This can be termed as a rejection, for Mei refused to act according to what she had said earlier. However, this is breach of promise and Mei should have communicated her final decision before the prize was won. Again, there was no formal acceptance on part of Ying and Yang. So, Ying and Yang cannot enforce Mei's initial offer. Intention: Mei, Ying and Yang were colleagues, and not professional gamblers. The general presumption is that there was no legal intention involved. However, the presumption can be rebutted, taking into consideration the seriousness of the consequences. But assessed objectively, the presumption can't be set aside due to the lack of any written or verbal contract acceptance of Mei's initial offer. Consideration: Finally, Mei refused to share the winnings, although initially she volunteered to "buy one last ticket on behalf of them all". Courts will not intervene, for a contract didn't exist at all. It was a verbal contract till four weekly tickets were purchased with the $120 won from the first ticket. The final instance is an evidence akin to Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954). Mei's proposal was merely a statement and not an offer capable of acceptance. This mentioned clearly in: " what is alleged to be an offer should have been intended to give rise, on the doing of the act to an obligationin the absence of such an intention, actual or imputed, the alleged offer cannot lead to a contract: there is indeed in such a case no true offer." (Graw Stephen, An Introduction to the Contract 5th edition, Lawbook Co. 2005, p. 41) . Question 2 Ying was tired of her long musical career so on 3 April she offered to sell her piano to Molly for $3500, saying that she would keep the offer open for ten days. Molly already had two pianos in her shop and was therefore reluctant to buy it. However, always ready to try for a bargain, she replied on 6 April with a verbal offer to buy it for $2500. This was not acceptable to Ying. In the meantime, Molly had discovered that this piano was a very rare one and worth much more than Ying's asking price. She quickly wrote to Ying on 7 April offering to buy it at the original amount of $3500. On 3 April, Ying had made the same offer by post to Wai. She had received no response by 7 April, so sent another letter to revoke the offer. Wai received the offer on 8 April and immediately faxed an acceptance. She received the letter of revocation on 10 April. This caused Wai some problems because she had already sold her own piano and was no longer able to give piano lessons. Ying had also put an advertisement in the window of her car. This read "Piano for sale. All offers accepted. Telephone 3333 4444." Charles rang this number, made an appointment to inspect the piano and made a written offer of $3500 on 7 April. Ying later changed her mind and decided to keep her piano after all. Discuss the legal effects of this scenario. Offer: The initial dealing between Ying and Molly can be characterised as an exchange of information that if she $3500 from Molly, Ying would sell her piano. Ying's communication with Wai by post is also quite similar. Again, Ying's dealing with Charles is an invitation to treat. Also, Molly's correspondence with Ying on April 7 is only an offer and there is no contract. Likewise, Charles' act of offering to pay $3500 is also a written offer and not a binding contract. Acceptance: Molly's written offer on 7 April to buy the piano was an offer which Ying never accepted. Charles' offering on 7th April to pay $3500 is also an offer and there was no acceptance on part of Ying.. Ying's offer to Wai is a written offer, however Wai's acceptance is not a legally accepted one, for Wai sent the acceptance through a fax machine. Revocation: Ying's revocation letter on 7 April is a legally accepted termination of the offer, for she sent it to Wai before she had accepted Ying's offer. Rejection: Ying's decision not to sell the piano is an instance of rejection. So the offer terminated with respect to Molly. But in case of Charles, it's not a legally accepted termination. For he accepted Ying's offer by offering to pay $3500 in writing. This was in response to Ying's advertisement on her car window. Intention: Assessed objectively, this case bears clear legal intentions. All the written and verbal communications between the concerned persons bear clear testimony to this fact. And the legal implications cannot be rebutted, for the gravity of the consequences. An offer to the world at large Ying's advertisement on her car window cannot be considered as an offer to the world at large. It's just an invitation to treat. "Advertisements are usually regarded as invitations to treat. This is especially so with advertisements of goods for sale."-(Graw Stephen 42). Consideration: Ying finally decides not to sell the piano. Courts cannot intervene with regard to Molly and Wai. In case of Molly, a contract didn't exist. Molly's letter was merely an exchange of information. The offer was not accepted and there was no contract-- similar to Harvey v Facey 1893. (Graw Stephen, An Introduction to the Contract 5th Edition,Lawbook Co. 2005, p. 41) In the case of Wai, it's a termination of the offer due to revocation. Charles' case is similar to that of Molly. He had made a written offer after reading Ying' s advertisement, which can be classified as an invitation to treat. But a contract didn't take place at all. His was just an offer, which was not accepted by Ying-a situation similar to Partridge v Crittenden, 1968, (Graw Stephen, An Introduction to the Contract 5th edition, Lawbook Co. 2005, p. 42). Question 3 John Lennon, the member of the famous Beatles band from England, created some fine drawings which are now available. Oscar owned an antique shop in Adelaide and sold a variety of different items ranging from glassware to furniture. Oscar purchased some boxes of items from the estate of John Lennon, a deceased signwriter from Adelaide. In one box Oscar found a line drawing with the title "Imagine" on it and signed by the signwriter - "John Lennon 1969". Oscar believed this drawing would only be worth approximately $20. Despite this he placed the drawing on a shelf in his shop with a price ticket of $5,000 on it. Chuck, a tourist from Queensland, saw the drawing and remembered that the famous John Lennon had once produced a song titled "Imagine". Believing it was drawn by the famous John Lennon, he agreed to buy the drawing. As Oscar was wrapping the drawing, Chuck asked "Is that John Lennon's signature" to which Oscar replied "Yes". Chuck had the drawing assessed by the Art Gallery who told him it was "not worth more than $50". Offer: The dealing between Oscar and Chuck might look like a verbal offer, but in reality it's only an invitation to treat. "A mere display of goods for sale at marked prices is generally regarded as an invitation to treat"-(Stephen Graw 42). Although the true worth of the painting "Imagine" by the sign writer John Lennon was "not more than $50", Oscar priced it at $5000. Without getting deep into the real facts, Chuck readily agreed to pay the amount asked by Oscar, thinking that this was a painting by the legendary singer John Lennon. Acceptance: Oscar accepted Chuck's offer of $5000. But this can't be viewed as an acceptance, which constitutes a contract. Oscar merely agreed to take Charles' offer of $5000,and part with the painting which was conceived as Charles as a painting by the legendary singer John Lennon.. Intention: There is no clear evidence of both the parties being bound by a legal obligation, for a contract didn't exist at all. An offer to the world at large This is no way an offer to the world, for it's just an invitation to treat. Consideration: After assessment by Art Gallery it was found that the painting was "not worth more than $50". If Charles invokes the Statute of Fraud, the court can't help him, for it was a mere assumption by Charles that the painting was by the legendary singer John Lennon. Oscar never claimed it verbally or in written that it was by the legendary John Lennon. Of course, he said "yes" when Charles enquired about it, but Charles' enquiry was partial. He never asked whether it was by the legendary John Lennon or by any other artist by the name of John Lennon. In this case, it was a coincidence that the name of the sign writer was also John Lennon. Question 4 Soke runs a retail business selling wine by mail. He has recently bought 10 cases of 1980 Grange Hermitage at a wine auction for $40,000. He mails to all his customers the following circular. Special offer AVAILABLE TO YOU AT THE SPECIAL PRICE OF $5,000 A CASE 10 CASES ONLY OF 1980 GRANGE HERMITAGE AUSTRALIA'S MOST PRESTIGIOUS WINE MAXIMUM OF ONE CASE PER CUSTOMER To order, please complete your name, address and credit card details on the enclosed form and either mail it to me at my business address 28 Cabernet Drive, Coonawarra SA 5280 or fax to me on my business fax number as per order form. FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED ORDERS FILLED STRICLTY IN ORDER OF RESPONSE OFFER CLOSES AT 5.00 pm 30 April Plonk receives one of the circulars on 27 April. He is very excited. He has always wanted some Grange Hermitage. He immediately fills out the order form and faxes it to Soke's business fax number. Unfortunately Soke's fax is out of paper and the message does not print out. Plonk gets a transmission report on his fax machine realising it is not the one he gets with a normal transmission. Worried that Soke will not get his fax, he re-transmits it to Soke's home fax number which he is familiar with because he has been a close friend of Soke for many years. This fax report gets through. However Soke is not at home as he is away on a business trip and due to return home on 2 May. Wanting to ensure that Soke gets his order, Plonk posts the order form to Soke's business address that evening. However in his excitement, he writes the address as Cabinet Drive. Soon after, Plonk begins to realise that he cannot afford such an expensive wine. On the morning of 30 April, he phones Soke, tells him about the faxes and the letter and that he no longer wants the wine. Soke has not heard from anyone else and realising Plonk is the only one to respond, tells him that they have a contract and Plonk is bound by it. Discuss whether or not there is a contract between Soke and Plonk Answer Soke's advertisement read thus-- Special offer AVAILABLE TO YOU AT THE SPECIAL PRICE OF $5,000 A CASE 10 CASES ONLY OF 1980 GRANGE HERMITAGE AUSTRALIA'S MOST PRESTIGIOUS WINE MAXIMUM OF ONE CASE PER CUSTOMER Here there is a limitation on supply indicated by the words, "maximum of one case per customer". So, in this case this is an offer and not just an invitation to treat. "If an offeror imposes some limit on the supply, such as "one per customer" or "until stocks run out", the words may be intended as an offer to fill all orders received subject only to that limitation. In such cases the statement may be an offer and not just invitations to treat."-- Stephen Graw 50 Plonk fills out the order form and faxes it to Soke's business fax number. Unfortunately Soke's fax is out of paper and the message does not print out. Plonk gets a transmission report on his fax machine realising it is not the one he gets with a normal transmission. Worried that Soke will not get his fax, he re-transmits it to Soke's home fax number which he is familiar with because he has been a close friend of Soke for many years. This fax report gets through. However, Soke is not at home as he is away on a business trip and due to return home on 2 May. Wanting to ensure that Soke gets his order, Plonk posts the order form to Soke's business address that evening. However, in his excitement, he writes the address as Cabinet Drive instead of Cabernet Drive, which is Sokes real address. Now, in the advertisement it was mentioned thus-- "to order, please complete your name, address and credit card details on the enclosed form and either mail it to me at my business address 28 Cabernet Drive, Coonawarra SA 5280 or fax to me on my business fax number as per order form". Since Soke's business fax was out of paper and the message does not print out, there was no contract at this instance. Plonk re- transmits the order form to Soke's home fax and it gets through. But this can't be considered as a valid order, for it was mentioned clearly in the advertisement that the form must be faxed to Soke's business fax number. Hence, this can't be termed as a valid order. Plonk then posts the order form to Soke's business address that evening. However, the address was written as Cabinet Drive and not Cabernet Drive, which is Soke's real address. So, the mail might not have reached Soke's business address at all. As such, there was no valid order on behalf of Plonk. As a result a contract did not exist between Soke and Plonk. Question 5 During 2003 the life of an Aboriginal artist, Albert Namatjira, was celebrated in a number of ways, including an exhibition in the Art Gallery of South Australia of his paintings from the 1930's to 1958. Albert Namatjira had a number of relatives who also produced similar paintings of varying quality. Albert's paintings are more valuable than those of other family members. Boondok, a dealer in paintings, located a painting of a desert landscape in colour with the name 'Namatjira' written in the bottom corner of the painting. He paid $50 for it. This painting was painted by one of Albert's cousins and was worth approximately $500. Boondok knew this. Albert Namatjira always signed his paintings, 'Albert Namatjira' in the bottom corner of each painting he did. Boondok placed his landscape painting in his gallery's front window with a price tag of $8,000 on it. Tex, a tourist, saw Boondok's painting on display. Tex said to Boondok, " I have always wanted a genuine Namatjira and here it is. I will buy it." Boondok replied, "It is always nice to buy something that pleases you. Hope you enjoy the painting." A week later Tex discovered the landscape he purchased was not by Albert and was worth $500. He now wants to return the painting and recover the $8,000 paid to Boondok. Boondok refuses to do this. Discuss the arguments that both Tex and Boondok will raise and what a court would be likely to decide. Answer: This is a case, which is bound to be taken to a court. Tex might argue that Boondok fraudulently sold him a painting done by Albert Namatjira's cousin at a much higher price. Before buying the painting Tex said to Boondok, " I have always wanted a genuine Namatjira and here it is. I will buy it". Tex might take this as a point in his favor and argue that if the painting was not done by Albert, Boondok should have informed him about the fact, and by not doing so Boondok has committed fraud. But Boondok is in an advantageous position. He never claimed the painting to be of Albert Namatjira. He merely said that, "it is always nice to buy something that pleases you. Hope you enjoy the painting". It was Tex's assumption that it was by Albert and he never mentioned to Boondok that he wanted a painting by that person. He merely said that he wanted a genuine Namatjira. Now, Albert's relatives also did similar paintings. Tex should have been aware of the fact that Albert always signed his paintings as Albert Namatjira, and not merely as Namatjira, as is visible in the painting which he bought. So, courts will definitely give a judgment in favor of Boondok. He can't be blamed for fraudlence. Question 7 Read the judgement of Hale J in the case of O'Dwyer v Leo Burning in Appendix 4 and answer the following questions. 1. Correctly cite the case and briefly summarise in your own words the facts of the case. 3 marks Answer: The plaintiff is an advertising salesman employed by a radio broadcasting company. The defendant's company makes, bottles and markets wines of various kinds. This action is to recover damages for personal injury which the plaintiff suffered on 1 January 1963 when he was struck in the left eye by plastic stopper which was blown out of a bottle of the defendant's wine known as "Sparkling Rhinegold". The facts of the case can be stated under the following: The plaintiff bought a bottle of wine from the defendant.The plaintiff was injured due to the sudden ejection of a hidden stopper when he opened the bottle at his home. Since he was a new consumer, he was not familiar with the characteristic and intended ejection of the stopper, which would be a foreseeable occurrence by an experienced wine drinker. The plaintiff sued the defendant for absence of warning. The defendant argued that it was the negligence of the plaintiff not to take precaution for the injury as it was reasonably foreseeable occurrence with actual knowledge and hence no warning was required. At last the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages. The plaintiff argued that the defendant owed a duty of care to give appropriate warning for possible danger from unknown and hidden defects. Case citations facilitate legal research and finding cases. It is most the case that the conditions were obiter dicta as they were used as reference and comment and not the decision in the case. 2. Hale J outlines four conditions that must be met before a failure to warn customers of a danger would be regarded as negligent. Restate each of these conditions as a question and explain how Hale J answered each including why he answered as he did. 6 marks Answer: The four conditions can be restated under the following: Should it be the negligence from the plaintiff not to take precaution for this reasonably foreseeable occurrence It was unrealistic to assume that a new consumer would foresee the occurrence of the possible danger to take any precaution. Should the injury be reasonably foreseeable by the plaintiff It was unrealistic to expect the plaintiff to foresee such an injury in an instantaneous ejection of the stopper when he knew nothing about the characteristic of the bottle. Would there be possible any accidents other than this occur in the same occurrence The judge did not specify except the one happened. Was the defect hidden and unknown to the plaintiff The plaintiff was not aware of the possible danger as he was not familiar with the type of sealing including the hidden and unknown defect. 3. Briefly summarise the defendant's arguments and Hale J's response to each. 4 marks Answer: The defendant argued that the bottle did not constitute a danger and the plaintiff should have actual knowledge so notice or warning was unnecessary. Hence it was totally the plaintiff's negligence not to take precaution.Shipster then sought to show that in reality the label on the bottle gave a consumer adequate warning. First, he pointed to the description of the wine as "sparkling" wine which would indicate that some pressure of gas could be expected in the bottle. Whether everybody would understand this, may possible be doubted, but the point need not be pursued because the plaintiff admitted that he himself was aware of this fact; but it was not explained how this could indicate any peculiarity in the method of corking the bottle. Secondly, he pointed to the words on the label, "Serve very cold", but it was not explained what relevance this had to the method of corking. In truth, if it had any relevance, it would seem to mean that so long as the bottle is very cold then there is nothing to fear; but Shipster agreed that a bottle kept for several days in a domestic refrigerator as the plaintiff kept this bottle would be very cold within the meaning of the label, yet compliance with this direction did not protect the plaintiff. Finally the witness said that it would not be possible to put on the bottle any waning that anybody could be expected to see: but this is so obviously wrong that it need no further comment. The judge responded that the plaintiff was in a new class of consumers so his ignorance of the characteristic and the intended ejection of the bottle was reasonable. Although general class of consumers would aware the characteristic, it did not mean warning was not required as the effect would be correspondingly little care handled by new consumers. 4. What were the component parts of the 'special ' damages 1 mark Answer: The special damages award comprised of medical and similar expenses, two trips from Bridgetown to Perth, five similar trips and wages to make up total 287 4s. 5. How did Hale J decide the amount of 'general ' damages 2 marks Answer: General damages were assessed based on doctrine of precedent that bound to follow the previous decision of a higher court on similar facts. In this case, it was bound by High Court in Halley v Chudleigh. 6. Almost all sparkling wine produced in Australia is now stoppered in the manner of Champagne, that is, with a cork that is wired down. Suppose an unwary first time buyer of such a product was struck in the eye by a spontaneously ejecting cork after they had removed the wire. Further suppose that the bottle had no warning concerning the opening. Using what was said by Hale J in O'Dwyer v Leo Buring explain whether you think the injured person could successfully sue the maker for negligence. 4 marks Answer: As per the judgment by Hale J in O'Dwyer v Leo Buring, an injured can rightfully sue the maker for negligence. The injured is in a new class of consumers and therefore, his ignorance of the characteristic and the intended ejection of the bottle was reasonable. Although general class of consumers is aware of the characteristic, it did not mean that warning was not required as the effect would be correspondingly little care handled by new consumers. Therefore, a manufacturer is liable to provide appropriate warning, notice or instruction on consumable goods with hidden defects or any intended behavior, which may cause personal injury or accidents even in a reasonably foreseeable occurrence to most consumers. Since this is absent in case of "Sparkling Wine", the injured can successfully sue the maker. Question 6 Recently in a joint statement within a case, 3 High Court of Australia judges stated, "This court does not consider itself to be bound by its own decisions." Discuss this statement in regard to binding precedent. Answer: In common law systems, every decision have precedential effect. It is easy for lawyers--in legal cultures descending from the English common-law system--to forget that this need not be the case: in civil law systems, court decisions do not create binding precedents. Given that court decisions set precedents, the question naturally arises: what is the precedential effect of a decision A traditional answer to that question may be that subsequent courts are bound to follow the holding of a decision, but they are not bound by mere dicta--statements that are "unnecessary to the decision." Two basic points regarding binding precedent or stare decisis (the latin phrase for the term "precedent") are as follows: Vertical stare decisis refers to the power of higher courts to bind lower courts. Horizontal stare decisis refers to the power of a court to bind itself. Many higher courts do not consider themselves bound by their previous decisions. For instance, the United States Supreme Court does not consider itself bound by its own prior decisions, although it says that it gives them "substantial weight" in its deliberations. Similar is the statement-- "This court does not consider itself to be bound by its own decisions"-- made by the three High Court Judges of Australia. This has implications for a holding. There are two theories of what constitutes the holding of a case. One theory is associated with legal formalism, and the other with legal realism. The formalist view is that the holding of a case is its ratio decidendi or the reasoning necessary to arrive at the result. The realists view holdings as predictions of what future courts will do. The holding of a case is simply the best prediction that we can extract from the opinion as to what rule the court would apply in future cases. And arguably, the best evidence is the court's own statement as to what rule it will apply in the future. There is a constant debate between the proponents of these two views. First, there is a descriptive debate. Formalists claim that when judges use the term "holding" they are, in fact, referring to the ratio decidendi of a case. On the other hand, realits claim that when judges use the word "holding" they are, in fact, making a prediction about what the court will do in the future. In addition to this descriptive debate, there is a prescriptive controversy as well. Legal formalists may acknowledge the existence of legislative style holdings, but argue it wrong to give courts the power to legislate in this way. In the same vein, legal realists may be willing to concede that some courts still use holding in its "old-fashioned," ratio decidendi sense, but argue that judges should employ legislative style holdings, in order to produce good consequences. Read More