Reflection 1Scenario

Students, you are the Judge hearing the dispute and the relevant facts (a) to (j) below are not challenged in the hearing conducted before you in the County Court:

1. On 30 July 2020 Mr Bookham, had a discussion with Mr Wynd at the Wynd's house, which was to the following effect:

"Bookham: I hear you want to sell your house.

Wynd: Yeah.

Bookham: What have you got on it, what do you want for it?

Wynd: $600,000.00.

Bookham: What else do you want?

Wynd: Well I want to sell the house as is and I want 3 months to vacate the property.

Bookham: Ok, do you want to put that info down on a bit of paper or something? Wynd: Yeah, Ok, no worries.

Bookham: Well, just jot down what you want."

2. Mr Bookham and Mr Wynd then signed a handwritten note which read:

"Rod Wynd 0407756765 10 Lawrence St, Frankston $600,000 3 months home as is 30/7/2019 B Bookham R Wynd"

2. At an unidentified time on 30 July 2020, Mr Bookham told Mr Wynd he would get a formal Contract drawn.
4. On 31 July 2020, Mrs Lorraine Bookham unexpectedly arrived at Wynd's house, bringing with her a document she had created with a photocopier. At the top of the document was a copy of the note above that her husband and Wynd had signed the day before, and at the bottom of the document was a copy of the cheque which she delivered on this occasion to Mr Wynd. The printed name of the drawer on the cheque was B & L Bookham.
6. Mr Wynd said Mrs Bookham said to him "here's Burt's [a reference to Mr Bookham] cheque" and handed the cheque to him;

Wynd said "Okay";

Mrs Bookham said "Here is the receipt. Could you sign it, please?"

Wynd accepted the cheque from Mrs Bookham.

(f)They discussed the receipt for the deposit and Mrs Bookham wrote in a space on the document between the copies of the note and the cheque the words "received from Bookham Constructions the sum of $60,000 as deposit on sale of [the Wynd's house]. (Sixty thousand dollars) 31.07.20". Wynd was able to read and understand that text. He signed on the line immediately before the date.

(g)Mr Wynd banked the cheque. He subsequently attempted, without success, to repay the $60,000.

(h)On 4 September 2020, Mr Bookham delivered an REIV/ LIV written standard form of Contract of Sale of Land to Mr Wynd. Mr Wynd gave evidence he was surprised when he looked at the Contract because it did not have any of the special conditions that he had requested; specifically, it did not provide him with three months to leave the property and did not specifically say that the house was to be "as is". The form of Contract did, however, provide for settlement on 31 October 2020, which was three months after the date of the alleged agreement of 30 July 2020.

(i)On 27 September 2020, Mr Wynd contacted Mr Bookham by telephone. Whilst there was a dispute between Mr Bookham and Mr Wynd as to the precise contents of that conversation, it was clear Mr Wynd wanted more money to sell the property on the basis that it was worth considerably more.

(j)Mr Wynd refused to sign the Contract referred to in paragraph (h) above, and Mr Bookham then commenced County Court proceedings which sought an order for specific performance of a Contract Mr Bookham claimed was reached on 30 July and / or 31 July, 2020 between himself and Mr Wynd.

Students are required to complete the following:

Answer all of the following reflection Q1 A -D using the information provided above. In each response students will need to:

Define the relevant legal principles that apply

Outline the methods and sources used to identify appropriate legal information (e.g. textbook, internet research etc - suggested sources may be provided)

Complete any additional questions asked specific to each case

Question 1D.Counsel (the lawyers arguing the case), appearing before you, said: "What mattered was what Mr and Mrs Bookham and Mr Wynd said and did, rather than what they thought was the effect of what was said and done.

You are preparing to write your Judgment and you need to set out what is the legal test for intention to enter into a binding contract.

Required: Please set out (a) the test; (b) a brief explanation of the test in your own words and (c) the full citation of case authority for the test - just one case, but more if you are so inclined. (See either Graw's text or class notes on Intention to be bound and Offer).

You

1 month ago

Unit code: BSBLEG415 (Apply principles of Contract law)

Send

Answer from your tutor:

Report this answer

abelgas_princessAnswered30 days ago

Intention to be legally bound is an essential element of a valid, enforceable contract. It means that all parties to a contract must accept the terms of the contract with an intention of forming a legally binding relationship.

Particularly, in its most basic form, the desire to create legal relations means that the parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement with enforceable rights and responsibilities. As straightforward as this may appear, determining whether the parties to a discussion intended to create legal relations is very fact-dependent. It's safe to assume that company representatives meeting in a formal commercial setting to discuss a contract do so with the intention of forming legal ties.

In determining if there is contractual intent anobjectiveapproach is taken; it doesn't matter if one party secretly did not intend to be legally bound if it would appear to a reasonable observer that they did.

Explanation:

Test: Consideration of whether a subjective or objective approach should be taken to determining intention to create legal relations.

Case: Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd

The right position, in my judgment, is that the existence of a contract is a result of what the parties have said and done that the law imposes or sees as a result of what the law sees as a result of what the parties have said and done." Actual subjective intent to contract is a criterion that the law considers when assessing whether a contract exists, although it is not often, if ever, the deciding one. An example can be used to demonstrate the point: Mr. X says, "I promise to sell my lot to Mr. Y for S10,000," and Mr. Y says, "I pledge to buy the lot from Mr. X for that amount." In this instance, a legally binding contract will be considered to exist. And this will be true even if neither Mr. X nor Mr. Y made any subjective reference to (and so had no genuine subjective intention to) whether a binding contract would be formed by the exchange of those promises. Even if neither party had any actual subjective purpose that a contract be established, in the sense that neither party gave any thought to the matter, the law will hold an enforceable contract to have been made."

A subjective reservation not to contract will not prohibit a contract from existing if Mr. X conducts himself in such a way that a reasonable person would believe he was intended to contract. Subjective intent, on the other hand, may be important if Mr. Y is aware of Mr. X's genuine subjective intent; for example, if Mr. X is 'pretending' to contract (play-acting), and Mr. Y is aware of this, the law will not impose a contract relationship on either party (even if they appear to be).

Thank you for your feedback

We're glad that it was helpful! Keep your study momentum going

Ask a new question

You

11 minutes ago

Content excellent but the questions specially requires the full citation of the case name. In your resubmission please only address this issue.