Contract Law Assignment Discussing The Law Suite

Question

Task: Analyze the case scenario and discuss whether the Darlings on 1st of October are liable to pay to Hook or not. Explain why Darlings terminate their contract with Hook?

Answer

Question 1
The major issue that has been raised in this Contract law assignment is majorly in concern to this current context is whether the Darlings on 1st of October are liable to pay to Hook or not.  As per the contract made between Darlings and Hook at a liquidated amount of $20,000 the overall repainting and incorporation of new floor corks works would be done by 30 September. However the obligations develop from the non performance of Hook in respect to certain specifications that had been illustrated by the Darlings in regards to their new floor covers in the contract that was developed between them. Contract law is an important part of a business function. It is important that one had the relevant sense of knowledge and information about the laws related Contract and its related aspects so that one is able to understand the logical application of it.

Owing to the nature of the issues being discussed the major rule that would be applicable would be in relation to Australian Contract Law.  In accordance to the Australian Contract Law contracts are commonly discharged by way of performance by the parties[1]. 

Upon the application of the Australian Contract Law it could be evidently stated that the performance of the said party should also be in accordance with the contract. Moreover, the contract price would only be payable when one party taken it in the form of a party and the other party takes it in the form of supply of goods or services. Therefore in respect to this it could be evidently noticed that the Darlings are not obliged to pay Hook since as a general rule under the concerned legislative principle Hook owned the duty to the other party to carry out all the major activities on its part in order to acquire the benefits of contract[2]. In this respect Hook had not been able to maintain or do so and therefore he does not hold any kind of legal obligation to make demand of its performance in terms of monetary gain[3]. In addition to this the Darlings by depending upon the non performance of Hook for this lump sum contract. Therefore under type of lump sum contract if the obligation is exact along with the performance that it leads to payment of the contract price. In such a scenario the performance of Hook has been defective as well as incomplete then the promisor which is Hook will not be entitled to the payment of the contract price. Case law Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 TR 320; 101 ER 573 is a similar affair in this case.

On concluding from the above application of the rule of Australian contract Law in concern to the issue it could be stated that the Darlings do not hold any kind of obligations to pay Hook the contract price which he expects in respect to the lump sum contract made between the two parties. Since as a promisor Hook has failed to perform the activities that had been mentioned in the contract. The Darlings could easily decline the claims of Hook based on the grounds of violations on the performance factor under the Contract law of Australia. The kind of projections that have been illustrated by the legislative principles of contract law demonstrate the foundational base of the major rationale that would support the decline of the contract price claim made by Hook.

Question 2
The issue in consideration is whether the Darlings have the right to terminate the contract with Hook or not.  This issue has been raised based on some of the major factors related to the issue of concern that is as promised by Hook in his contract with the Darlings he would repaint the house as well as put a cork tile floor cover. Instead he used lino that looks like cork tiles for covering the floor as a delay was made by him to order for the cork tile by 15 of September. In addition to this he even missed to paint some of the windows of the house that was under the contract[4].With this study of Contract law assignment a scope is provided to understand the application of Australian Contract Law in respect to a particular case issue. 

The section 11.250 of the Law Handbook discussed in this Contract law assignment in relation to breach states that a contract by come to an end if the party commits a serious breach of contract. Therefore based on the concerned legal rule the overall determination of the issue that has been raised would be discussed effectively.

Based upon the application of the concerned legislative principle it could be observed that there has been occurrence of serious breach of an intermediate term that had been incorporated during the development of the contract. It had been stated by the Darlings that they wanted to use cork tiles as Mary had asthma while George had arthritis for which the cork tiles would best suit them since it is both dust free and soft in comparison to lino tiles. The breach occurred during the performance of the obligations that was made between the two and there was certainly no repudiation before the breach of contract. This specifically determines that it is a case of actual breach[5]. Since in an actual breach there occurs a failure to perform which has resulted into the breach of contract and even the breach precedes the time of termination. Although there has been a non serious breach of an intermediate term as well in case of default painting but the occurrence of the serious breach in the form of using lino tiles instead of cork tiles straight away provides the Darlings the base upon which they can terminate the contract. Under the different conditions which explains the rights of the party in which one of the parties could terminate contract it could be signaled that the promisee that is James Hook has led to the termination of the contract owing for causing a breach of a promise that had been made the other party. Moreover the obligation that had been defined by the Darlings had been an intermediate term of the contract a non performance of it results into an immediate breach of contract[6]. 

Based upon the above stated application of the rule to the issue raised it could be stated that the Darlings have the right to terminate the contract with Hook just after they identified the default in the use of lino tiles instead of cork tiles on their floor cover. The kind of obligations have been made in concern to an intermediate term of contract which had to the development of serious breach it could be evidently determined that the Darlings have every right to terminate contract. A breach has been involved due to failure of performance permits the Darlings to terminate the contract. It could be stated in this Contract law assignment that a breach of contract could occur of one party fails to perform the duties or obligations that had been predetermined at the time of the development of the contract. It is important for both parties to address the terms of the contracts effectively so that there is maintained of its recovery at level of performance.

References
"Aus Contract Law | Overview Of Contract Law", Australiancontractlaw.Com (Webpage, 2019)

Carter, John, "Good Faith In Contract: Why Australian Law Is Incoherent" Contract law assignment [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal

Consultaustralia.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019)

Klijnsma, Josse, "Contract Law As Fairness" (2015) 28(1) Ratio Juris

Peter Radan, John Gooley and Ilija Vickovich, Principles of Australian Contract Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4 th ed, 2017) 100.

Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66; (1938) 61 CLR 286 (23 December 1938)

[1] Carter, John, "Good Faith In Contract: Why Australian Law Is Incoherent" [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal

[2] Peter Radan, John Gooley and Ilija Vickovich [2018]

[3] Klijnsma, Josse, "Contract Law As Fairness" (2015) 28(1) Ratio Juris

"Aus Contract Law | Overview Of Contract Law", Australiancontractlaw.Com (Webpage, 2019)

[4] Consultaustralia.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019)

[5] Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938]

[6] liability/Consult_Australia_Response_to_AGD_Discussion_Paper_on_Contract_Law_-_July_2012.pdf?sfvrsn=0>