However section 52 provides a general prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct in commercial activities. Whether the violation of contract might also be breach of section 52 is a significant issue. The basis of such argument is the consideration that contractual promises are obligations which contracting parties have undertaken to fulfil, and to enter in to a contractual undertaking and subsequently fail to adhere to it is misleading with in meaning of section 52. There have been several cases (FN2, FN3 and FN4) in which consideration has been given to the scope of section 52. However, if the agreement is signed without consideration of moral principles guided or defined as per Australian contract law there is a sufficient ground for the client to seek for the relaxation.
As the Seymour Skinner was forced to sign the agreement or contract which is nothing but violating the legal principles of contract, he is not bound to the contract with Agnes and Krustylu Television Studios to full extent. It has to be assessed whether an unfulfilled contractual promise itself as opposed to a defect in the promise constitutes a breach of section 52. Several cases revealed that an unfulfilled promissory contractual term to be declared as misleading needs to be argued under long Australian contract law (FN5). ...
Breach of this contract is recognized by the law and legal remedies can be provided.Once the legality of the contract is maintained, then any party who signed the contract have to obey the contract. The agreement between Seymour and Agnes and Krustylu Television Studios clearly violated the legality, hence it comes under illegality of Australian contract law. Any person involved intentionally under this contract may be punished and the person who was forced to sign will be given sufficient chance to represent his case. Once the judicial body finds sufficient ground in defence of client, it may reconsider or review the contract and may declare the contract as void.
(2) This contract comes under violation of principle of performance and breach. Australian courts have not definitively established the non-fulfilment of a contractual promise as conduct itself being misleading with in section 52 (FN7). As long as the "conduct" definition (FN8 and FN9) is satisfied, the person violating or non-fulfilling contractual promise will be charged under misleading conduct. Other wise section 52 of Australian trade Practices act relaxes the condition for client. It will provide enough opportunity for client to represent his case and show sufficient proof of not meeting the definition of "conduct" by the other party under the contract.
(3) This contract has not obeyed the principle of undue influence. Seymour has been put under pressure to sign the contract. Even though Seymour Skinner admits that his mother was behind his successful career, it is not proper to expect that Seymour should sign a trade contract in favour of his mother Agnes. As it is the responsibility of any mother to shape the career of her children it is not to be linked with trade