Issue:
The issue to be identified here is whether Noel will be successful depending on the formation of a legal relation with James.
Rules:
Creation of a legal relation is established by means of a contract between the parties. In order to create a valid contract, few essential conditions are to be followed which are as follows, the first condition is the agreement between the parties that must be initiated by giving offer by one party to another and such offer when accepted by the offeree, an agreement results as stated in the case of R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47. The second condition is consideration as observed in Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162. The parties to a contract must have the capacity to enter a contract as per section 9 of Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). Minors as per Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW), intoxicated persons and mentally impaired are prohibited from entering into a contract. The fourth criterion is the intention of the parties to enter into a legal relation as given in Helmos Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jaylor Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 235. Social or domestic agreements are to be presumed as not having intention to create legal relation. Lastly, the agreement of the contract must clearly and sufficiently mentions the rights and duties of the parties to the contract. It is stated in the case of Whitlock v Brew [1968] HCA 71.
Application:
As per the facts of the case, no legal agreement was formed between them because of they are students and must be prevented to enter into the contract as per the said Actas they lacks the capacity. They do not have any intention to enter into the legal relation. Moreover there lies no certainty about the agreement between them. Thus, the agreement between James and Noel forms a social contract as per the Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8 and not legal contract.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Noel will not be successful as no legal relation lies between them.
Answer 2:
Issue:
The issue here is whether Jack possesses any legal rights over Bert’s land.
Rules:
An easement can be described to be a non possessory right to make use of or enter into the property without possessing it and such property belongs to another. The provisions of easements are useful for determining the pathways over two or more properties. The party who uses or enters into the other’s property is regarded as the dominant estate whereas on whose property or land, such right is used is called the servient estate. This is provided in the case of Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131. Easement can be granted by both express or implied manner. Express way of granting easement includes grant through deed or any other legal instrument. Implied easements are granted by the conduct or behaviour of the parties.
Application:
From the facts of the case, it is seen that Jack is being permitted to keep his car in a shed that is located on the large car wrecker yard of Bert. Jack made a contract orally and for this paid 20$ weekly. Here Jack has the easementary right over Bret’s land due to which he can enter and go out the yard to have access to his car. Here Bert’s land acts as servient estate and the easement is created impliedly.
Conclusion:
From the discussion, it is seen that Jack has easementary right on Bert’s land.
Answer 3:
Issues:
The issues involved here the issues arising out of Sale of Goods Act between Harry and Sally.
Rules:
This case study is to be analysed in the light of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 of UK that deals with selling of goods. Section 14 of the said Act states that when a seller sells goods during regular course of business, the goods are to be of satisfactory quality which means the quality of goods must be fit for the purpose for which the goods are generally used.
Application:
As per the facts given, the salesperson cannot bring into any such clause as per the section 14 of the Act. It is the duty of the seller to sell goods that are fit for the purpose. Thus such form signed by Harry and Sally will not be binding on them and they can bring legal action against the seller for selling the defective clothesline as seen in BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809.
Conclusion:
Thus Harry and Sally can enforce their legal rights against the seller.
References:
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162
BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8
Helmos Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jaylor Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 235
Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW)
R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47
Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Whitlock v Brew [1968] HCA 71
