ACL Intention to Legal Relations

Question: Discuss about the ACL Intention to Legal Relations. Answer: Introduction: Legal system means system which regulates the process of making and implementation of law. At early stage this system defines creation and implementation of law in various states. It also reflects the behavior of public, organizations and government with the observance of laws. In Australia, legal system was created on the basis of British Legal system because of the European Settlement in Australia (Law Teacher, n.d.). When British parliament decided to settle government in the colonies they established including Australia, at that time number of laws was introduced which result in legal system. In 19th century, six states of Australia participated in a movement which was organized for the creation of the Central Government. On 1st January 1991, Australian Constitution was created, which also considered as beginning of Independent Australia. Australian constitution is the foundation of legal system in Australia, and it is developed by the people of Australia who cast vote for its implementation. Constitution states the original laws of nation (banks, 2007). Six Former states of British Colonies joined hand to form nation named as Australia. Legal system of Australia was developed at the time of formation of nation. Legal system of Australia has many common features from the British legal System, and it also include parliament system of Britain and adversarial (two sided) court system. In 1903, High Court of Australia was established and it has jurisdiction over the Supreme Courts of State. This ensures single union Australian common law. In case Parker v The Queen [1963] HCA 14 see Dixon J at 17, High Court stated that Decisions of House of Lords are binding (SACE, n.d.). There are two main sources of law in Australia: Common Law: the main source of Law in Australia is common law. This law is based on the common law of British System, and also developed in the courts based on precedents. Statutory law overrides the common law, and in situation of conflict statutory law prevails over common law. In such situations common law is no longer valid and Courts follow the Act passed by Parliament. Common law usually represents the doctrine of English Law, and new doctrines of English law continuously represented by Common law in Australia. For example, Doctrine related to negligence was derived from famous case law Donoghue v Stevenson, and still this doctrine is used at the time of deciding cases (Legal Service Commission, n.d.; ANU, n.d.). Statutory law: statutory law is created by nine parliaments of Australia that is Commonwealth, six states and two territories. For example, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Corporations Act 2001. In Australia there is one more source from which law is derived that is International treaties and conventions. We can understand this with the help of case law, Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh. In this case, High Court of Australia considered the international treaty and convention which was ratified by government of Australia, but not yet inserted in domestic law. High Court applied the provisions of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (Barravecchio, 2016 ; Oxford university, n.d.). Explain the areas which define the business law in this case, and who can take legal action in this case and remedies awarded by Court? Contract law principle states that every contract is valid unless any contrary is proved by parties. In Australia, contract is valid if essential elements of contract are present. Here are some essential elements of contract: Offer- there is no particular form to constitute an offer. Offer is a communication between two parties in which one party that is offeror promise to do something if other party to whom offer is given that is offeree promise to do something in return. An offer can be made to a single person, group, and whole world. We can understand this with the help of case law that is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. In this case, Court held that there is valid offer between parties because it made to the world, and language of offer is not vague (ACL, n.d.). Acceptance- acceptance is statement made by offeree in which he ageing to the offer made by offeror. Acceptance can be given in oral form, written form or by conduct. It is necessary that offer must be accepted by person to whom offer is directed, and for the valid acceptance it is necessary that acceptance must be in the reply of offer made. We can understand with the help of case law that is Crown v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227. In this case, Court held that acceptance to be effective it must be given in exchange of offer made. Consideration- Consideration is something which has some value and asked by promisor in exchange of promise made by them. Consideration is necessary for valid contract, and it is the essential element of contract (ACL, n.d.). Intention to create legal relations- this element of the contract is the most essential element. It is necessary that parties to the contract must intend to create legal relations with each other. Usually presence of consideration is the evidence that parties to contract in intending to create legal relations between them (ACL, n.d.). This can be understand with the help of case law Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd. In this case, Court stated that intention of parties can be proved by their statements and their conduct at the time of making contract. Duty of care and negligence: Negligence means a person fails to take reasonable precautions for the risk which caused injury or loss to another person. Negligence can be proved by four steps, and burden to prove negligence is on the plaintiff. Following things are considered in case of negligence: Whether defendant owes duty of care towards plaintiff. Whether conduct of defendant does not meet the standard of care, and there is any breach of duty on part of defendant. Whether plaintiff suffered injury or damage from the conduct of defendant. Whether injury to plaintiff caused by the breach of duty by defendant (Legal Services Commission, n.d.). Duty of care is a legal obligation on person to avoid risk, and this duty on person arises when risk is foreseeable. It is necessary for the existence of duty of care between parties that there is any close relationship between parties. For example: relationship between doctor and patient. For deciding whether there is breach of duty of care Court consider the standard of care expecting from person in those circumstances. The standard of care is determined by what any other reasonable person would do in similar situations. In case conduct of defendant does not meet standard of care then it will be considered as breach of duty (Legal Services Commission, n.d.). The best example of case law related to duty of care and negligence is Jackson v McDonald's Australia [2014] NSWCA 162. In this case, Court held that Mr. Jackson proves that there is breach of duty of care by McDonalds towards him. He is also succeeded to show that risk of slipping on wet floor is not obvious risk, and this risk is foreseeable (Dignan, 2014). In the present case, Hugh runs seafood restaurant, and he decided to serve the food to the customers at home in by drone. In starting all this are going well. On 11th November 2016, Drone fall from the sky and cause serious head injuries to Nick. On 12th November 2016, some chemical leaks from the drone and contaminate the food. That contaminated food is delivered to Lana and Len, which kills Len and cause serious injuries to Lana. In this case, all the essential elements of contract are present that is offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal liability. There is valid contract between the customers and Hugh. A valid contract creates relationship between parties that is customers and Hugh. Therefore, key areas of business law in this case are contract law, law of tort and consumer law. There is close relation between Hugh and its customers, which states that Hugh owes duty of care towards its customers. Risk related to Drone is foreseeable because on 11th November drone hit the Nick and cause serious injury to him. Therefore, it is clear from above facts that Hugh owes duty of care towards its customers, and risk related to drone is foreseeable. After identify the risk related to drone, Hugh fails to take precautions to avoid the risk of harm which considered as breach of duty y Hugh. Breach of duty of care cause serious injuries to plaintiff that is Nick, Lara and Len. They have right to sue Hugh for compensation. In this case, Nick, Lara and Len can take legal action against Hugh for negligence, and Court can provide them compensation for damages they suffer because of negligence of Hugh. Conclusion: In this case, Contract Law and Consumer law is applicable, and there is clear breach of duty of care by Hugh towards its customers. Therefore, injured persons has right to sue Hugh for seeking financial compensation. References: ACL. Agreement. Available at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html#offer. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. ACL. Consideration. Available at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-consideration.html. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. ACL. Intention to create legal relations. Available at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-intention.html. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1989). ANU. Law: Australian legal system. Available at: https://libguides.anu.edu.au/c.php?g=464979p=3179892. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Banks, R. (2007). Australian Legal System. Available at: https://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/334232/aust_leg_syst_601.pdf. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Barravecchio, A. J. (2016). Where does law come from. Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.org.au/01_01_01_where_does_law_come_from/. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Crown v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227. Dignan, H. (2014). Jackson v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162. Available at: https://www.turnerfreeman.com.au/tfq/jackson-v-mcdonalds-australia-ltd-2014-nswca-162/. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Donoghue v Stevenson. Jackson v McDonald's Australia [2014] NSWCA 162. Law Teacher. Distinguishing Features of the Australian Legal System. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/distinguishing-features-of-the-australian-legal-system-constitutional-law-essay.php. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Legal Service Commission. Sources of law. Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch27s02.php. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Legal Services Commission. Negligence. Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Legal Services Commission. What is negligence. Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch29s05s01.php. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh. Oxford University. Sources of Law. Available at: https://lib.oup.com.au/he/samples/ciro_LAB4e_sample.pdf. [Assessed on 11th January 2017]. Parker v The Queen [1963] HCA 14 see Dixon J at 17. SACE. The Australian Legal System. Available at: https://essentialseducation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/SACE2_Legal_Studies_Workbook_Sample_Pages.pdf. [Assessed on 11th January 2017].