1. In the case of Jenny, the circular which she got was an advertisement of the salon which was distributed to a large number of people not only to Jenny. (Carlill v carbolic Smoke Pvt. Co.) Now the question is whether Jenny can bind the salon for misrepresentation? Or can she claim compensation for her loss as she moved from her place relying on the offer made by the salon.

Law:An advertisement of this kind where attractive services or goods are to be provided at a cheap price is not an offer to the person to just accept it and make the contract binding. [Partridge v Crittenden, 1968] This kind of agreement is the invitation to treat. This means an open invitation to public to make offers and the service provider or shopkeeper will accept it. It is also not necessary that the person making such advertisement is bound to sell the product on the same price mentioned. The circular by the salon comes under the same category where the prices were also mentioned. [Grainer & Sons v Gough, 1895]

Application of Law: Jenny relying on the price listed in the circular made the appointment and after reaching to the salon after driving her car for almost 30 minutes was told that it was not the right price for which she was asking. It was mistakenly mentioned and the correct price is $100. According to the Law Jenny cannot force them to provide that service for the low price mentioned in the circular, she can only make the claim for loss she suffered in reaching the salon as it took almost 30 mins. The principle relating to the revocation of offer is that an offer can be revoked at any by the offeror before acceptance as was held inDickinson v Doddsin 1876.[Composition of an agreement, 2012]

Conclusion:Hence, Jenny can revoke the offer made by her and no need to pay any charges to the Salon but if she had taken their service and then after it was disclosed by the salon that the original price is $100 and not $10, Jenny would have the legal right to sue them for Damages on the grounds of misrepresentation and non disclosure of essential facts.

BUSINESS LAW

CASE STUDY ON BUSINESS LAW

March 16, 2013-byadmin

DescriAnswer all 4 questions.

HA2022 Business Law, Tri 3, 2011

1. Margaret owned an antique store that specialised in rare porcelain dolls. When she

opened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999

she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the point

where she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one night at

the kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep the

business going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughter

and aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she would

receive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that she

would give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds.

Advise Emily.

2. Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into an

arrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front- and backyards of the

family property mowed, and he will have to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return,

his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously used a

garden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare property,

and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richard's father tells him

that he can't afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the work

for nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property;

besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging. Advise Richard.

3. Jenny received a circular from Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon advertising massages and

manicures for $10. Realising that this was an exceptionally good deal, but not surprised

because she knew that they had only just opened and were running a number of good

opening specials, she rang and made a booking. When Jenny arrived at the salon she was

told that there had been a mistake on the circular and it should have said $100. The

manager of the salon explained that this was still a good price because normally a

massage and manicure would have cost $150. Jenny was furious, as it had taken her 30

minutes to get to the shop by car and if she had known it would cost $100, she would

never have made the booking. Advise Jenny. Would your advice have been any different if

Jenny had the massage and manicure before being told that the cost was $100? Would

she have to pay the full price?

4. Bruce, while he was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing, bid successfully at

an auction for the purchase of a house. It was clear to the auctioneer that Bruce didn't

know what he was doing. However, after Bruce sobered up he confirmed the contract

with the auctioneer. He then subsequently refused to complete the contract. Is Bruce be bound your assignment

1. Issues: There was an oral agreement between Margret and Emily but at the time of entering into agreement Emily was a minor i.e. under the age of 18 years. Basically there are two issues involved in it, first whether Emily can confirm the agreement between them as a contract after attaining majority? Second whether Emily has the right to bind Margret under the agreement between them.

Law: A contract with a Minor can be valid, void or voidable at the option of the minor. [Business Law, 2009] The contract entered by the minor for the benefits of service paid by him is a valid contract. A minor has a right to repudiate contract after attaining the age of majority and escape from the liability or can reaffirm that.

Application: Here, Margaret agreed to give Emily the unsold stocks against the service provided by her but at the time of retirement she announces to give the unsold stocks in charity.Emily can make Margret to comply with the terms of agreement as it was a legally enforceable agreement. It is only Emily who can make the contract void after attaining the age of majority.But this option can be exercised by her only during her minority once she attained the age of majority. Once she does nothing during her minority to repudiate the contract, she can not make it void after that. [Mance, 2011]

Conclusion: Therefore in this situation, in 2009 the agreement became legally enforceable and Emily has all the rights as a party to the contract, so she can bring a suit in the court of Law against Margret to take all the benefits.

Generate 100 detailed questions from the case study above