Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

P.

Samaha 22061883

Enterprise law final exam QUESTION 11

11.

Problem 1:
Tony initially puts his exercise equipment up for sale at $10,000. Adam, his friend shows
interest in this offer however, throughout this scenario Tony has not formed a contract with
his friend Adam despite a series of circumstances that occurred which may have
complicated the process.

Adam inquiries about the weights being included in the offer and Tony confirms that they
are included. This offer stays open for one week. After a few days, Tony decides not to sell
his exercise equipment as he realises is love for it. He forwarded this message onto Adam
via email, letting him know that he was not selling the exercise material. Despite Adam’s
laptop being broken, at this point, Adam has still only made an inquiry about the weights
being included.

When Tony decided to relist his offer, he publicly announced it in the local newspaper.
Rachels offer may be interpreted and considered an acceptance to this offer while Adams
was just an inquiry. Therefore, there has been a contract between Tony and Rachel, but not
Tony and Adam.

Problem 2:
In this scenario, Safepark LTD have stated their conditions regarding parking regulations.
The exclusion clause (2) states ‘the company shall not be liable for any injury suffered by any
person on the company’s premises. However, Boris slipped on a pool of oil and broke his leg
in the carpark. Despite a major contributing factor is Boris having limited knowledge in
English (not being able to read) as he is from a Russian origin the exclusion clause may be
overridden. This is because exclusion clauses cannot override consumer rights under the
Australian Consumer Law. A party that relies on an exclusion clause may be forced to
remove the clause under the Fair-trade act 1997 as it may be prejudicial to the opposing
parties. Therefore, this exclusion clause would not be affective as Boris’ injury is severe and
it is reasonable to act against.

Problem 3:
i)
a) yes
b) yes
c) no
d) yes
e) yes
P.Samaha 22061883

ii)
a) Section 54 of the ACL states that there is a guarantee that the goods are of
acceptable quality. In this case, the software computing system stopped working
after 2 weeks. This is breaching section 54 of the ACL as it should have been in
working conditions and everything should have been checked before selling the item
to the consumer.
b) The second scenario demonstrates Greg buying a phone off someone in the pub for
$200.00. This scenario is a breach of section 18 in the ACL which prohibits
misleading or deceptive conduct. Due to the phone being stolen, this act is deceptive
as Greg was unaware that this phone had been stolen.
c) In this scenario, section 18 has been breached as the client may need a licence to
hold certain artworks.
d) In Paige’s scenario, section 54 and 56 have been breached as the quality is not
acceptable and also does not meet the description of the product.
e) Section 59 has been breached in this scenario, as the washing machine may still be
in warranty. Section 58 (Availability of spare parts and repair facilities) has also been
breached.
iii)
a) The consequences of breaching section 54 of the ACL may include being sued, or if
consumer and seller negotiated, the item may have been given back and Frank may
get his money back as the item is not in acceptable quality.
b) The consequences for this scenario include the phone Greg bought being confiscated
from him and imprisonment for the individual that sold Greg the telephone.
c) The original painter may sue this client for having printed copies in her household.

d) Paige in this scenario can sue the place she has purchased this bike from as it did
not perform correctly and left her with severe injuries. As well as Paige may be
entitled to a refund. For the company, they will need to cover any injuries that Paige
experienced.
e) As the washing machine may still be in warranty, Fitzwilliam is entitled to any repairs
and fixation if the product is broken or damaged. Section 58 states that he has the
right of repair facilities and spare parts.

You might also like