Hiro - Akshita - Carmen Case Study - Law Assignment Law

Assignment Task:

Case Study 1: 
1.ISSUE
The issue is whether or not Hiro can win the competition and the $25000 bonus by enforcing the contracts using manipulation on incapacitated persons and undue influence. In either event, if the contract was voidable.
i) Hiro used the power of manipulation on a mentally incapacitated person by convincing his grandmother whose’ s developing Alzheimer's disease that he will visit her quite often if she gets the loan and puts a pool in the back yard.
ii) Hiro convinced his ex-girlfriend by taking advantage of her vulnerability that if she gets the loan, they will end up together which was a lie. 

RULE
i) In ARCHER V CUTLER (1980) it was held that the contract made by a person who is mental incapacity is/ was voidable at his option if the other party knew or was aware that he did not have a sound mindset but also if the contract ‘ was unfair to the person of unsound mind.’  There was no consideration of principle that could prevent the court from holding a contract held by a person of unsound mind is voidable at his option if it is proved either that the other party knew of his unsoundness of mind or, whether or not he had the knowledge and it was unfair.

ii) In Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 it was held that the relationship of husband and wife is enough to say that there was undue influence. The Court is therefore aware that the husband can obtain and use unfair influence over the wife.  However noted that there is nothing unusual in a wife, due to affection, conferring substantially financial benefits on her husband.  The wife entered the contract without a clear understanding of what it was, the rule also applies that the wife did understand the transaction but her consent was influenced by the husband.

APPLICATION 
i) On the facts, a person of the unsound mind may be liable, however, it can be voidable provided that the individual with the unsound mindset was not capable of what they were getting into at the time as noted that Hiro did not fully explain the terms and conditions of the contract and thereby pressuring his grandmother to agree to get the loan. 

CASE STUDY 2
2.ISSUE
The issue is whether or not Akshita can enforce the clause in the employment contract against the two employees that are leaving her company. And how she can structure similar clauses clearly in the future so that they will not be challenged.

RULE
i) Contracts of employment may have certain agreements and clauses that may restrict one from exercising their profession and trade at a different organization after the termination of their employment.  But does not prevent the employee from using their own skills and knowledge even if they acquired it from a previous employer’s service (Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688). In this case, it was held by the House of Lords that a person is free to earn a living and use their skills elsewhere.  Lord Shaw stated that it was a bondage of one's labor that he must, for seven years of his life, become an exile.” Therefore such a clause is unenforceable.

ii) In Thomas v Farr PLC And Another (2007) CA, it was held that the employee had been exposed to the companies confidential information and is was the right for the company to secure and protect it. Although it is difficult for both employee and employer to know what remains confidential or not after the termination of the contract.

iii) In FSS Travel and Leisure Systems Limited v Johnson and Chauntry Corporation Limited: CA 19 Nov 1997 it was held that they must be a subject matter in which an employer can protect by a restrictive covenant. The court also stated that they will never uphold an agreement merely to protect the employer from the competition. And that protection cannot be claimed in rest to a skill the employee gained from the previous employer.

APPLICATION   
i) Although noted that every employment contract in the US has that clause, and   Akshita can enforce the above clause against her former employees because the clause clearing states that if you are working for the Underground solution you cannot work at any firm operating in Australia. Both Lin and Dimitri can be liable for the breach of the employment clause as they are working firms that operate across Australia.

CASE STUDY 3
3.ISSUE
Whether Carmen can be remedied under the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).
RULE
i) When there is a breach, either by a buyer or a seller, either party can be remedied under the CISG convention, provided that the prescribed conditions are fulfilled as mentioned in the Articles to it.

APPLICATION 
i) The instant facts of the case, suggest that Spain did not deliver the wood, despite C paid in advance and Australia Company also refused payment for the shipped toys. So, this breach under Part III, Articles 25 of the CISG, since the detrimental effect is suffered by C and thus is deprived in case of [CITATION CL097\I 1033]. Both Spain and Australia cannot be said to have foreseen the breach from the perspective of a reasonable person, to suffice the breach. So, Australia being the buyer of the goods from C, have the obligations under Articles 30 and 31 to deliver the goods on payment of the consideration.

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.