LAW204 - Contracts Assignment (1 Viewer)

[maple_leaf_matt]

edit: If you have a formal complaint, take it up with me or an admin, rather than going behind my back.

Now that rant is over; the assignment looks quite complex but there has to be a simple response that will draw in all aspects of the course so far like consideration, privity, estoppel etc etc. (assignment attached)

 

[MaryJane]

Not to start another argument, but asylum didnt close that thread because he didnt get into law. He closed it because that tha-ish dude was just looking to spong info off other people. If you want a real discussion on a law assignment, check out our property law one. This is not a place to get people to answer the question for you.

Personally, I much prefer the way you've done it. You're not being a lazyass; it seems like a genuine discussion starter

Anyway, good luck! I might drop back later and have a looksie, once I get my bum into gear and write something for constitution!

Edit: I just looked then - its the Von Trapp family!! Do you guys still have Susan? Last year, she ripped off Dolce and Gabbana, calling it Dolce and Gabardine. What a creative lady

 

[tha-ish]

OK First of all thank you so much to Matt. You clearly realise this assignment is very difficult. Everybody is arguing something different and it is totally whacked!

Mary Jane I understand you did contracts last year, but your assignment was on consideration and consideration only. Our legal problem deals with minors, parole evidence rule, estoppel and according to who you talk to a lot of other things.

Scarecrow of oz has been very generous in her help and she too, I think, understands the position we second years are in this year. edit: next time, a) don't post in caps, b) don't make such a vague statement ordering people to post 'stuff' on an assignment.

A bit late to start discussion on this, but I think i have figured out what I am arguing. If you want to discuss anything further, make a post and I'll look out for it although I am quite turned off this site.

And just to clarify, I didn't make that post to get an easy way out - there is no easy way out. You should know this Mary Jane. Even if someone told you the answer you still need to read the cases, which is somethink I, unlike many others, do every week!

I worked hard for my hsc to get a 98 UAI to get into law which is something I've wanted since I was in year 7. I study hard in my degree and work hard too. I have never been so disrespected in my entire life as I was when those things were posted about me.

To think that on a forum such as this, filled with intellects, which I know from reading the posts most days, that people could be so judgemental and ignorant, so as to your character from a two sentence post . . . is just inconceivable to me! we have nothing but your posts to go by, do yourself a favour and understand we are busy people, merely asking for 'stuff' is not helpful to us or yourself.

 

[tha-ish]

BTW MATT!

I'm arguing:

1. parole evidence rule,
2. minority and
3. estoppel.

Let us know what you think or if you have any different

 

[maple_leaf_matt]

Hi Tha,

Thanks for your reply. I've divided it up into two separate contracts:
1. the written one between Max and the kids
2. the oral one between Max and Georg.

I'm arguing the first is not binding due to s19 of Minors (Prop & Con) Act 1970 NSW

The second is binding and is enforcable through specific performance and failing this, Georg has a chance in promissory estoppel as the statement in contract two is promissory in nature where in contract one it is not.

I'm not using privity at all, do you agree?

Matt

 

[:: dreami ::]

Just a tip, theres a good discussion going on on the webct forum on the assignment. I thought that could be another place of insight if you're feeling lost.

I've pretty much structured my argument the same way as yours Matt but I've also looked into issues of certainty. I've ruled out privity altogether, it seems very complex and I couldn't find a way to link Gayorg to the initial contract.

HTH

 

[tha-ish]

I'm arguing that the Captain is more likely to recover the prize money from Max through the children because they at least have a written agreement with Max.

I think its very hard to argue that there is an enforcable against Max with respect to the Captain.

Also, if your arguing estoppel the first element is whether an existing legal or pre-existing legal relationship exists between the parties

 

[maple_leaf_matt]

edit: If you have a formal complaint, take it up with me or an admin, rather than going behind my back.

It's hardly behind your back if its on a public forum which you moderate, you seemed happy enough to take part in similar endeavours against tha-ish in the previously closed thread. Let's keep on track here. And if it was a formal complaint, it would be kept private. However, as complaints on these forums are seldom formal, I thought it would best fit the style of BOS to follow suit.

 

[AsyLum]

It's hardly behind your back if its on a public forum which you moderate, you seemed happy enough to take part in similar endeavours against tha-ish in the previously closed thread. Let's keep on track here. And if it was a formal complaint, it would be kept private. However, as complaints on these forums are seldom formal, I thought it would best fit the style of BOS to follow suit.

Ok.

Lets get things straight. I posted a line:

People like this are allowed to do law and they reject me?! GG

Notice the ? Notice the GG (good game) ? Notice the overwhelming sarcasm? Obviously not. You obviously didn't get the non-seriousness of the other posts with regards to the topic at hand.

Formal complaints can be forwarded quite easily to a moderator, a super-moderator or an admin. They come quite often, and one of the reasons moderators exist.

Your attack against me seemed to signal that I was the anti-christ and had this innate need to justify me not getting into law. From what? Two posts? How many posts have I made? Just a shy of 10,500. The burden of proof, as known by those who have been here longer than you, is that I was joking when I posted my original response.

Your second criticism is that I went after tha-ish. Lets see, he became abusive first, started assaulting other members and then told us how he had some sort of experience in a law firm to justify his actions. Let me tell you now, when someone posts up a thread like that, which appears to be nothing more than 'sponging' then as a moderator, you get defensive. I have outlined my reasons previously, but here it is for an official time:

• The thread was inciting unnecessary attacks.
• It served no purpose, with an incredibly vague first post.
• Abuses the very people who are interested in helping him.

Again, you appear to be taking some sort of moral high ground on this, claiming that I have no right to do so, then find it necessary to enlighten the rest of the forum of my 'illegitimate' actions. You then proceed to assassinate my character freely and maliciously.

a) You work part-time in a law firm? Doing what? Filing you idiot ? Perhaps you do a little typing? Or some receptionist work ? Fuck off with the experience shit. I probably have more experience than you working in actual legal situations and that was back in year 10-12.

b) Don't you dare insult people on here about not helping you after you blatantly asked for them to just post shit up. Fuck you buddy. As you said, it is an informal forum, not you're fucking easy ticket out. You got into law, then do the fucking work. Otherwise get the fuck out of my forum.

Have a nice day.

Please tell me where in that I assaulted his character? I worked off the evidence shown in the thread, he was vauge, abusive, and lacked the grammar to carry such a conversation across.

You believe you have a case, please don't hesitate to contact Minai. Otherwise, you can take your pretentious case and shove it. I've had enough of you lot who think that have 40 odd posts gives you the right to judge me based upon 2 posts.

Have a good day.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

im for just deleting this whole thread. Its pointless and useless (well actually, the first point is a characteristic of the true maquarian way , but the latter isnt, as it hasnt inspire any future direction of topic besides fighting which, although entertaining, is highly destructive in this peace-loving community of hippy pirates).

 

[marchetta]

Tha-ish, I felt you had taken the comments posted in your previous thread too seriously. There’s probably no point trying to start a new thread about the same topic if the same drama is going to happen. And Maple Leaf, studying law doesn’t make you above everybody else – maybe we don’t want to do law because we’re not interested.

Anyway, if you’re having trouble with your assignment, consult your tutor or lecturer for assistance or even your classmates. The discussion board on your unit’s webct would also be of great assistance too. Anyway, I hope there won’t be any more abuse on the mq board in the future.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i've gotta say reading that thread did make me feel bad for the guy so i do empathise with matt he was just trying to defend him i don't really get why everyone took tha-ish's posts like they did i mean i think he was just sending up an intitial post to see who was doing 2nd yr mac law which is why it was vague or whatever so he could then have a discussion with them - i mean i do the same thing everytime a law assessment comes around and i haven't yet been flamed for it... no disrespect asylum i know u've put heaps of time into helping people on bos and moderating the forum which is really great of u. i just don't get why it was necessary for his post to degenerate into such a massive online argument

 

[AsyLum]

Again, I seem to be taking the brunt of things, because of what, one line I said ?

 

[iambored]

i don't really get why everyone took tha-ish's posts like they did i mean i think he was just sending up an intitial post to see who was doing 2nd yr mac law which is why it was vague or whatever so he could then have a discussion with them

you're probably right about why it was vague, but for others reading it, it was an order for people to post stuff, it wasn't promoting discussion or offering help to others in return, just asking others to post stuff. seriously, look at the wording "for tha love of god" "start posting stuff." as well as that, unless tha-ish was bothered to capatalise the first letter of every word, it's likely it was originally written in caps, which makes it even less credible (i can't think of a better word). because of that, most of the original replies were jokes, he posted back abusing members (probably as a joke as well, but it obviously went down the wrong way). so, although tha-ish might have wanted to start a discussion in an informal way it didn't come across that way.

Again, I seem to be taking the brunt of things, because of what, one line I said ?

you take the brunt of things because you're in the position of power, it's part of the job description for any higher position, at any time in life.

 

[maple_leaf_matt]

That was quite a thorough response. Furthermore, my reply in kind will do nothing to change your opinion or those who have already taken one side or the other. I was only attempting to defend a fellow student in my year and stimulate discussion of the assessment. I see it as a waste to fill this thread with posts not related to the assignment. PM me if there are any more issues. For those doing law; i circumnavigated the entire privity issue and claimed that equitable estoppel could be applied in the second informal contract and would fail in the first written contract. I had a look at the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 No230 (NSW) also in regards to the obligations of managers. Any thoughts?

 

[xeuyrawp]

im for just deleting this whole thread. Its pointless and useless

Before someone does, can I point out the terrible grammar of the assignment notification, 'Advise the Captain of his chances of recovering the prize money?' etc

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

In the original thread, I was just having a little bit of fun which led to an abusive assault. I'm surprised that someone would have taken my satirical banter so closely to heart.

I had a look at the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 No230 (NSW) also in regards to the obligations of managers. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure if that is applicable. Originally I thought that the facts were in relation to Max being a manager. However, I asked David Spencer and he said that "Max is promoting the festival". In other words, I think the prize money was on offer to anyone who won the competition. However, as an authority at the festival, Max renegged on the grounds that the children were minors and hence lacked capacity.

In regards to my approach to the assignment, I agree with tha-ish for the most part. I discussed privity as the captain was not a party to the contract. Therefore, an action has to be brought on behalf of the children. Additionally, I proceeded with capacity, saying that the contract was beneficial in accordance with the Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW). From this, I suggested that a pivotal course of action was required, dependant on whether or not the $20,000 prize money was a term of the contract. If it was expressly written (parol evidence rule), then enforce the contract. If not, raise an estoppel arguement from the children, based on detrimental reliance (etc). The estoppel arguement has the effect of incorporating the term into the contract as it enforces the promise relied upon.

I'm not sure if this was entirely correct but it seemed to work. Also, the facts were a little ambiguous so I think there was room for movement, depending on how you argued it.

One more week of holidays and then back to the grind stone.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Before someone does, can I point out the terrible grammar of the assignment notification, 'Advise the Captain of his chances of recovering the prize money?' etc

you would think with all that highly complex langauge that lawyers love to use in their arguments to confuse everybody else, they could, at the very least, first master basic english

*gets stoned to death by lawyers*