Part A: Contracts Law

Question 1

Issue: The issue arise in the case is whether the company in question is liable to pay $75,000 as price money to Gorka.

Rule: the Australian contract law is defined as a law that will help in enforcement of the promises agreed between the two parties. A consumer and the provider make contract between each other when they agree upon using the products or services delivered to the customer. The contract law comes into function when there are some disputes or contradiction in what is being said and meant by the service provider (Smits, 2017). If there are potential chances of the breach of the contract or the agreement formed among the two parties will be remediated by courts. However, if the second party is aware of the discrepancies or the mistakes, and still undergo the contract, then it will not be considered as a breach of the law. Moreover, there are laws stated by the Australian government to prevent the customers from the unfair activities of the service providers (McKendrick and Liu, 2015). If the mistakes committed are genuine and without any unfair objective then they can be resolved by articulating them to the customer and the remedies are provided to the customer.

Application: in the given case, Rhino distillery advertised about catching the Misterjaw and the price money for the same will be $75,000. However, it was identified that the price money will be $7,500 and it was a printing mistake in the advertisement. In the case of Gorka, who was an angler heard about this and continued the fishing activity. This shows that Gorka was aware of the mistake occurred in the contract. Therefore, it should be considered that the distillery company is not under the obligation of paying him $75,000. Moreover, Gorka is claiming to be paid the same amount that was defined in the advertisement. However, he cannot claim the previous amount in any circumstances because he was aware of the fact that the amount stated in the advertisement is due to some mistake and the actual price money is $7,500. Thus he is under a position to claim for $7,500 but not $75,000. Furthermore, he was under the condition to retract from the contract as it was not specifically between him and the company. Therefore, it was his will to remain in the competition even after knowing all the facts.

Conclusion: the conclusion made in the given case is that a contract or agreement that forms between the different parties should be clear and precise. However, there are chances that some technical mistakes may arise as in the case of Rhino distillery. In such conditions, the company is responsible to articulate the mistakes occurred if it intends to be fair in the contract. However, Gorka was aware of the fact that there is mistake in the price money and he also knew the actual money. Therefore, according to the contract law, he cannot claim for the price money stated in the advertisement.

Question 2

Issue: the issue arising here is whether Hank is in a position to claim $75,000 as the price money from Rhino distillery for catching the giant Misterjaw.

Rule: The rule of the contract law states that in a general contract made by the company, anyone is eligible to become a part of the contract. The guidelines and the conditions in a general contract are made clear to everyone. According to this law, the company is under the obligation to articulate the changes made in the contract so that everyone is aware of the changes amended in the contract so that their intentions are not questioned. Furthermore, by clearing the conditions, the company safeguard itself from the claims that the customers can make (Andrews, 2015). Therefore, it is the duty of the company to be widely clear with its customers and eliminate any slightest chances of doubt.

Application: The contract law can be applied on the given case where Rhino distillery made some advertising mistake for the competition it conducted in the Placid river for catching the Misterjaw. Tyler Henry who is also known by the name Hank participated in the competition. As per the given case, he was not aware of the printing mistake in the advertisement about the price money. He though the price money is $75,000 therefore, he ended up catching the fish on the Christmas eve. As per the rule, it was the responsibility of the company to articulate the mistake occurred. Due its inability to provide complete information, most of the people participated remained unaware of the mistake. Therefore, as per the contract law of Australia, Hank fulfil all the liabilities to claim for $75,000 as price money from the company. Moreover, the company cannot deny him from the price that amount because Hank has no idea of the actual price money and that the money stated in the advertisement was due to mistake. The liability in this case is upon the company and thus he can claim for $75,000 instead of $7,500.

Conclusion: By collecting and observing the facts of the contract law and their application in the case of Hank, it can be inferred that Hank was not aware of the fact that the stated price money in the advertisement is wrong while there is a possibility that he invested so much time maybe for that amount only. Therefore, the issue arose that whether he should claim for $75,000 goes in the favour of Hank. He should claim that money. Moreover, the company did not disclose the real amount thus it cannot deny Hank from claiming the amount. Therefore, it can be summarized that Hank should claim for $75,000 and Rhino distillery should provide him that amount according to the law. If it fails to comply with the law, then the case can go further in court.

business law assignment help, business law assignment, taxation law assignment help, law dissertation help, corporate law assignment help, law assignment writing service, commercial law assignment help, contract law assignment help, constitutional law assignment help, criminal law assignment help, company law assignment help, company law assignment, international law assignment help, administrative law assignment help