Foundations Of Law Assignment - Monash University

Assignment Task

Introduction

1. This is a claim by the plaintiff for a refund of $29,990 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, Jack Sparrow, for the provision of seven pairs of sneakers. The plaintiff says the sneakers are “unauthentic” and he wants a refund.

2. The matter came before me for hearing on 31 October 2023. As a result of persistent illness and associated backlogs of decisions this decision has taken longer than intended, for which I apologise to the parties.

3. The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim sets out as follows:

The first defendant Jack Sparrow represented to the plaintiff that:

a) he had a system with some international associates to try and obtain pairs of Nike Jordan 1 Dior sneakers by targeting them in raffles across the world

b) he had personnel in each country in which the raffles were held, who would collect the Nike Jordan Dior sneakers and send them to [Jack Sparrow], to distribute to his buyers

c) receipts for all the products would be supplied

d) if the Nike Jordan 1 Dior sneakers did not hit Australia, or should the plaintiff have any issues with them, the defendant would provide a full refund.

4. The plaintiff then also paid [Jack Sparrow] $2,690 for a pair each of Nike Jordan 1 Chicago, Royal and Bread

5. When the Nike Jordan 1 Dior sneakers were delivered to the plaintiff, the plaintiff noticed defects in them, and he then ascertained that they were high-end counterfeits.

6. The plaintiff could not contact the first defendant Jack Sparrow.

7. The plaintiff contacted the second defendant Edward Sparrow.

8. [Edward Sparrow] said that if the plaintiff established that the sneakers were counterfeits, by having their authenticity tested by a non-biased sneaker authenticator who is acceptable to both the Page 5 of 21 plaintiff and [Edward Sparrow], [Edward Sparrow] would accept responsibility and “sort it out”.

9. The plaintiff and [Edward Sparrow] visited Secret Sneaker Store for this authentication, the authenticators “face completely dropped” on hearing the name Jack Sparrow, acknowledging that [Jack Sparrow] was a fraudster and a scam artist who had been blacklisted.

10. The authenticator reported that all of the sneakers were counterfeit.

11. The second defendant [Edward Sparrow] offered $4000 to the plaintiff in compensation, which was rejected.

12. The second defendant then offered $10,000 to the plaintiff in compensation, which was rejected.

13. The defendants say that Jack Sparrow was a 17 year old school student at the time the agreement was entered into. This is not disputed by the plaintiff. The text claims the plaintiff submitted show texts on 17 July 2020 and 27 October 2020 referring to Jack being at school. In addition, the plaintiff sent Jack a text on 2 May 2021 wishing him a belated happy 18th birthday.

14. I conclude from the evidence before me that Jack Sparrow was 17 years old when the agreement was entered into, and that the plaintiff was well aware that that was the case. There are legal repercussions. 

15. Relevant law provides that a contract that is otherwise properly made will nonetheless not be binding if one or other of the parties lacks contractual capacity, and that contracts made with a person lacking capacity are generally voidable at the option of the person who lacks capacity.1

16. The classes of persons lacking contractual capacity are minors, the mentally disordered and the intoxicated. The law denies such persons contractual capacity in order to protect them from assuming contractual obligations in circumstances where they may not have been able to assess whether those contracts were in their own best interests.

17. Section 3(1) of the Age of Majority Act 1977 (Vic) provides that the age at which a person gains full capacity is 18 years. As a result, a person of 17 years, does not have full capacity to enter into contracts.

18. The general aim of the law is to protect minors from the repercussions of agreements they have entered into which they may not have completely understood or of which they were not aware. The main distinctions in this area are between contracts that are:

• Binding on the minor, namely contracts for necessaries;
• Binding unless repudiated;
• Only binding if ratified; and

19. The contract in question does not fall into any of these categories. It is not a contract for necessaries, in that it is not a contract under which the minor is provided with food and drink necessary to sustain life, or the services of a lawyer or medical practitioner. It is not a contract under which the minor is provided with services,4 rather the reverse – the minor was contracting to provide services, and those services were in fact provided.

20. The category of contracts binding on a minor unless repudiated are those whereby the minor acquires an interest in a subject matter of a permanent nature to which continuous obligations are attached, such as a leasehold interest in land or the purchase of shares.5 The contract in question is not of that nature and it is therefore not a contract voidable at the option of the minor. Even if it was, it has not been repudiated by the minor, Jack Sparrow.

21. No action can be taken to enforce a contract against a minor unless and until the contract is ratified by the minor, 6 upon the minor attaining majority.7 In the present case, all monies were paid by the plaintiff and all shoes were delivered by Jack Sparrow whilst Jack Sparrow was still a minor, with the result that the contract was fully performed whilst he was a minor. He has taken no action to ratify that contract upon attaining the age of 18 years. The evidence suggests that he in fact did all he could to avoid the plaintiff once he had turned

22 Even if the contract had been ratified by Jack Sparrow upon his turning 18 years old, which it was not, Section 50 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) provides that no proceeding can be brought to charge a person on a ratification made after full age of a promise or contract made during minority.

Questions

1. What are the material facts of this case?

2. What is the ratio decidendi of the case? Explain.

3. Give an example of obiter dicta in the judgment. Explain.

4. What was the final decision of the court?

5. To what extent do you find the Magistrate’s analysis convincing? Do you agree with the decision? Explain your reasoning.

Purpose

The main purpose of this Act is to assist in protecting children from sexual or physical harm by ensuring that people who work with, or care for, them have their suitability to do so checked by a government body.

Scenario

Tom is employed by a large company in their warehouse. His work involves unloading and loading delivery trucks, storing products, and also filling customer orders. He has recently been speaking to a friend who also works in the same industry in a similar role, and they have been comparing wages and conditions. Tom is really concerned as he thinks that his employer has been underpaying him and not paying him the correct leave entitlements. He also has not received a pay slip since he started work. His friend, who is an avid reader, said he had been reading about some legislation that was introduced a few years ago about wage theft.

• Clearly state the full name of the relevant Act, version number and most recent date of any amendments.
• According to the relevant legislation, is the company liable under the relevant legislation for any offences, and if so, what is the penalty for each offence? Consider Parts 1 and 2 of the Act only. Explain your reasoning.
• Would it make any difference to the Company’s liability if the matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court? Consider Parts 1 and 2 of the Act only. 
• It turns out that the company was not aware that Tom was being underpaid or that the employment records were incorrect – they had relied on the General Manager of the Company, Harry, to ensure that everything was done correctly. Harry has been funding a lavish lifestyle by not paying employees correctly. Is Harry liable under the relevant legislation for any offences, and if so, what is the penalty for each offence? Consider Parts 1 and 2 of the Act only. Explain your reasoning.
• It turns out that the company had no idea that Harry was not paying employees correctly, as they had just left Harry to it, never checking on what he was doing. Can the Company be made liable under the relevant legislation for any offences committed by Harry, and if so, what is the penalty for each offence? Consider Parts 1 and 2 of the Act only. Explain your reasoning. 
• When considering the Explanatory Memorandum of this legislation what was the key objective of introducing this legislation?

1. Flora runs an Animal Care Centre where she looks after animals that have been neglected, including horses, dogs, cats, chicken, ducks, sheep, and cows. She has just started to allow children, who have been victims of trauma, to come and visit the Centre, in the hope that this will help with their rehabilitation. The children love to spend time with the animals, helping out around the farm as well with feeding and grooming. The children come from a local community hospital and are dropped off for a few hours at a time. Usually, a support worker is with them, although can’t be with all the children at the same time. Sometimes the children are just dropped off and Flora takes care of them. The children range in age from 7 to 15 years old, and often come in groups of up to 12 children.

2. In March 2024 Bella applied for a job at the Cosy Care Centre, a childcare centre in Berwick. A term of her employment is that she has a current working with children check or at least have applied for one when she started work. Unfortunately, at the end of June 2022, Bella was working at the Hampton Hills Daily Care Centre when she was charged with a minor theft offence and found guilty. The Magistrate imposed a fine and ordered she undertake 20 hours of unpaid community service. Bella maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings. This incident also resulted in her receiving a negative notice and her WWC assessment notice being cancelled.

3. Ben operates a private tennis coaching business out of his house in Brighton, where he has a private tennis court. He is a well-known tennis player, having played the professional circuit for a number of years. He retired after he injured his hip to the extent that he was unable to play professional tennis anymore, and he had also decided to become a religious minister. Ben often ran the Sunday service at the local Anglican church and subsequently met a lot of people living in the area. After a number of years, Ben decided to give private tennis coaching a go and built up quite a large client base. Initially he only coached adults, but he has recently been asked by some of his clients if he can coach their children. Initially he refused, but eventually gave in. He now sees about a dozen children a week – the children are generally dropped off and picked up by their parents and he usually coaches one at a time.

Unfortunately, his neighbour, Karen, is quite unhappy about what Ben has been doing. The tennis coaching has meant that the street is often filled with cars, particular if Ben is hosting a tennis tournament for his students, which he does from time to time. Karen has complained to Ben about it, but he has ignored her and told her the street is a public street not private. Karen has been keeping a close watch and has noticed the increasing number of children being dropped off at Ben’s house. Karen works with children, and is aware that a new Act was introduced in 2020 requiring all those who work with children to have a WWC check. Karen asks Ben one day is he has had one, and Ben replies” I don’t need one – I’m working from home and most of these kids are friends of my kids.” Karen reports Ben to the local council.

This Law has been solved by our PHD Experts at My Uni Paper.