Several provisions and theories have been introduced to ensure smooth functioning of the legal systems. Amongst the several theories, Hart’s theory of recognition has been known to be associated with the legal system. In order to be recognized as a law, a rule must include three essential requirements. First, the rule must impose validity with respect to all those things that are existing within the legal framework. Secondly, the rule must include a test, which provides legitimate results that confirms the validity of such rule. Thirdly, the rule must have the competency to amalgamate all the existing provisions within a particular legal framework. These requirements indicate the three-tier system that was recognized by Hart, which must be present within a legal system. The system is said to be functioning from the bottom to the top where the flow ranges from the judicial precedents of distinct states to different customs from the legal systems. The Hart’s legal system comprises three secondary rules, which includes rules of recognition, rules of change and the rule of adjudication.
The legal system of Australia is almost similar to the legal system adopted in the United Kingdom. This is because the UK legal system uses a three-tier system unlike Australia but the recognition rule of Hart is also applicable in the legal system of the UK significantly. However, the Australian legal system uses a two-tier system, which is divided between the state legal system and the Commonwealth government. Australia has a codified Constitution known as the Commonwealth of Australia, which is very unlikely in the UK. The Constitution stipulates legal principles that govern the relationship between the Federal government and the state government. Besides the statutory provisions, the Australian legal framework is also based upon the principles of common law, which is used to resolve any legal related issues. Nevertheless, in Australia, in the event of any contradiction between the statutory law and the common law, the common law shall prevail over the rules and regulations of the statutory law.
Thus, it can be said that the rule of recognition as introduced by Hart is rightly used within the legal framework of the country. This is evident from the fact that the country has a constitution, which sets out the legal provisions that determine what rules are to receive legal recognition and what are merely to be perceived as rules. The Australian Constitution has also incorporated legal provisions that regulates the relationship between the Federal and the state government and have precisely distributed the legislative powers between the state and the Federal government in order to formulate laws of the country. This establishes that the Constitution ensures validity with respect to every rule that is prevailing within the legal framework of the country. Further, the rules include a test that determines its validity to become laws and such rules purports to mix all the prevailing rules with the new rules within the legal framework of the country.
From the above discussion, it can be stated that the three-tier legal system that has been introduced by Hart is incorporated into the Australian legal framework as it recognize laws through constitution and its provisions. It further incorporates principles of common law through incorporation of judicial decisions and customary law. The legal system of Australia can be compared `with that of the legal system of the UK where Hart’s three-tier legal system forms the foundation of the UK legal system. The only difference between the two legal systems is that Australian legal system is codified but the legal system of the United Kingdom is unwritten. However, in the legal system of the UK, there is an additional scope with respect to common law apart from the constitutional provisions. Nevertheless, the use of common law principles is comparatively less in Australia than in the UK.
Here, the issue is that Angelo and Barry enters into a contract to buy a store of fruits and vegetables. Several terms were provided within the contract but the contract also includes misrepresentation of the facts.
A contract is said to be valid if it includes consideration, agreement, and legal intention to be bound by the contractual obligations. Australia incorporates certain principles of common law within their legal system. Here, the term ‘agreement’ refers to the contact that is entered between two or more parties who becomes legally bound by such agreement. In other words, this establishes the fact that there is an offer and acceptance between the parties. It also implies that the acceptance was made with free consent. The term ‘free consent’ implies that it must be free from misrepresentations, undue influence or coercion.
The terms of an agreement of sale must be complied with and must not be contravened and the parties to the contract must be provided with such assurance that the terms shall not be violated. In the event, either contractual party breach such terms, the court may order specific performance of the party who contravenes his or her part of the contractual obligations. In AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter Supreme Court of New South Wales (1977) 1 BLR 9454, the court held that offer was made but was not accepted. However, Hyde v Wrench (1840) Beav 334 stated that a counteroffer was made. A counteroffer takes place when an offer is made but the offeree does not accept the offer with its terms instead makes another offer with new terms. Once a counter offer is made, the original offer cannot be restored. Hence, for an offer to be valid, it must be accepted along with its actual terms.
The term ‘misrepresentation’ amounts to a wrongful representation of the facts, which is not included in the contract but is represented before the contractual party to be facts. The elements of misrepresentation which makes a contract as void includes information that are falsely represented and consent for such information is obtained falsely. Several forms of misrepresentation include negligence, mistake and misrepresentation. Fraudulent misrepresentation takes place when the person making a statement believes the statement to be false but continues falsely presents the statement as true, which induces the offeree to accept such offer that has been falsely represented by the offeror.
This is evident from the case of Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville; [1988] FCA 40; (1988) 39 FCR 546; (1988) 79 ALR 83 where the offeror or the defendant had made false statement in the contract which resulted in termination of the contract by the plaintiff. In Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597, the issue was similar and the contract was rescinded on the fraudulent misrepresentation. In both the cases, the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the right to withdraw the contract where the acceptance has been obtained by misrepresenting the facts that were believed to be false by the offer himself.
The remedy that any aggrieved contractual party may seek in case of contracts that were entered due to fraudulent misrepresentation includes withdrawal or termination of the contract that has been ruled in Immer (No. 145) Pty Ltd v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) [1993] HCA 27; (1993) 182 CLR 26; (1993) 112 ALR 609. Further, the party inducing the aggrieved party to enter into the fraudulently misrepresented contract shall be liable to indemnify the loss that he or she has caused to the aggrieved party as was upheld in the case of Whittington v Seale-Hayne [1900] 82 LT 49 and pay damages to the aggrieved person as well. This was held in Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] 61 CLR 28.
Angelo made an invitation to offer regarding the selling of his shop and since the offer was open to all, any person could have accepted the same. In AGC Ltd v McWhirter, the Supreme Court of NSW has asserted that invitation to offer can be accepted by any person as it is not confined to a particular person or group of persons. Further, Barry made a counteroffer that revoked the original offer, which was proposed by Angelo as counteroffers imply rejection of acceptance of the original offer that was held in Hyde v Wrench. The selling price of the shop was the only element that was distinct from the price offered by Angelo in the original offer. However, Angelo accepted the terms and conditions of the counteroffer except for the price of the shop.
Angelo had a business of vegetables and fruits and was aware of the monthly profit and expenses of the carrying out such business. He was aware that there were competitors present and that few days later the van was repossessed by certain people who claimed that the van was on lease. This misrepresentation of facts rendered the contract, as void as there were fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the loader and the van. Angelo had falsely stated that the loader was working fine whereas in actual, it broke down and required replacement as it could not have been fixed in other any manner.
Therefore, Angelo has committed a breach of is duty as a supplier rendering the contract as void and is liable to indemnify the damages for the commission of breach.
The issue in this case is to evaluate the remedies available against the breach of contract.
The supplier is entitled to ensure that the products supplied are of good quality and is fit for the purpose for which the buyer has purchased it. This is a statutory obligation imposed upon the suppliers under section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act [1954] and is considered as an implied term in any sale of goods agreement. An implied term is a term that is not expressly mentioned in a contract and is neither determined between the contractual parties because it is obvious that such terms will have to be met in order to perform the contractual obligations. The implied terms are crucial to any contract and non-compliance of implied term amounts to a breach of a contract.
Under Part 6 of the SoGA, the persons aggrieved due to breach of an agreement are entitled to seek several remedies that are available against the infringer of the contract. In case of failure to deliver goods within the reasonable or stipulated time, the aggrieved party may claim damages as a remedy to such breach under section [54] of the SoGA. Further, as per section [56] of the Act, remedies are available for contravention of warranty and section 57 of the Act allows aggrieved persons to be indemnified for the damages suffered with interests apart from entitling them to recover the amount paid for the delivery of goods, in the event they are not delivered by the seller.
In Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525, it has been stated that mere possession of goods does not give effect to its transfer unless the person possessing such goods has ownership rights upon the property. Further, In Bisset v Wilkinson & Anor [1926] UKPC 1, it was stated that in case a party has been induced to enter into a contract by fraudulently misrepresenting the facts, the person might terminate the contract. However, termination of the contract is not mandatory as the aggrieved party may also seek damages for the loss suffered due to such fraudulent misrepresentation.
Angelo was aware that he was not entitled to sell the car as it was given on lease, as he did not have any ownership right over the car. This was clearly stated in the contract with respect to the use of the loader and the van. It is evident from the fact that the van has been used for business purposes for several years. Although previously, it was observed that Barry relied upon Angelo fin respect of the quality of the van and the loader but such reliance gave rise to issues leading to breach of the contract on part of Anglo. The lack of ownership rights of Angelo over the car prevented him to transfer the same, which was also mentioned in the Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson & Anor [1991] EWCA Civ 12.
Hence, it can said that in this case, the van cannot be transferred as it was on lease and as per the contractual terms, Barry was entitled to claim charges in case the van was not returned which shall amount to a significant breach of the contract. In regards to the usage of the loader, it was supposed to be used from loading goods into the van it broke down and was required to be replaced. However, under section 19(1) of the SoGA, this amount to a breach of warranty, which attracts the provision of section [56] of the Sale of Goods Act for such breach that entitles Barry to claim damages from Angelo.
Further, Barry is also entitled to claim for amount that has been paid including the amount paid in interest against Angelo. As mentioned above, that Barry shall be entitled to several remedies that are available under Part 6 of the Sale of Goods Act which includes his right to be indemnified for the damages that have been caused due to such breach of the contract on part of Angelo.
Conclusion
Thus, under the given circumstances, it can be stated that Barry is entitled to claim several remedies including claiming for damages that he has suffered due to breach of the contract committed by Angelo.
References
AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter Supreme Court of New South Wales (1977) 1 BLR 9454
Bayern, Shawn. “Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept.” Cal. L. Rev. 103 (2015): 67.
Bisset v Wilkinson & Anor [1926] UKPC 1
Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
Cartwright, John. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
Cotterrell, Roger. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Routledge, 2017.
Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Law and Morality. Routledge, 2017. 63-99.
Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville; [1988] FCA 40; (1988) 39 FCR 546; (1988) 79 ALR 83
Hyde v Wrench (1840) Beav 334
Immer (No. 145) Pty Ltd v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) [1993] HCA 27; (1993) 182 CLR 26; (1993) 112 ALR 609
Kelsen, Hans. General theory of law and state. Routledge, 2017.
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] 61 CLR 28
Macaulay, Stewart. “Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study.” The Law and Society Canon. Routledge, 2018. 155-167.
Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson & Anor [1991] EWCA Civ 12.
Sale of Goods Act 1954
Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597
Whittington v Seale-Hayne [1900] 82 LT 49
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download