Legal Proceedings Against Wayne, Golf Club, And Damages Claim

Part (a)

Part (a)

Paul was playing golf with two friends at his local golf course in a weekend golf competition. Paul hit a drive and proceeded to walk forwards along the fairway towards where his golf ball landed. Paul was approximately 50 metres from Wayne when Wayne decided to hit his golf ball. Wayne thought it was safe to hit because Paul was near a line of trees that provided some cover. Unfortunately Paul is hit in the face by Wayne’s golf ball.

Paul is considering bringing legal proceedings against Wayne.

Required

Will Paul be successful if he brings legal proceedings against Wayne? In your answer refer to relevant sections of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and to any relevant case law.

Part (b)
Paul is also considering bringing legal proceedings against the Golf Club. He believes that the Club should have installed protective fencing to allow players and spectators to safely move along the side of fairways without being struck by golf balls. However the club say that they cannot be liable because they are protected by wording that appeared on the back of a scorecard. 

Peter, who was playing golf with Wayne and Paul when Paul got hit, was handed a scorecard by the Golf Club. The scorecard contained the wording:

“This golf club accepts no responsibility for any loss, harm, injury or death howsoever suffered by any person that enters this golf course”

The writing on the back of the scorecard was particularly small and Paul has difficulty seeing small print. Further, Paul states that he never saw that scorecard. Although, Paul is a regular player at the course and has on numerous occasions been the player responsible for keeping score by using scorecards supplied by the Club (that contained the exact same wording on the back of the card). 

Required

Will Paul be successful if he brings legal proceedings against the Golf Club? In your answer refer to relevant sections of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and to any relevant case law.

Part (c)
Worse is still to come for Paul. Paul does not seek any medical treatment for his injuries. He believes he merely has some slight concussion and a bad scar from the incident. However, after two weeks his eye sight starts to deteriorate. It turns out that there has been some permanent damage to his left eye as a result of the incident. 

A specialist report from medical professionals reveals that if Paul received treatment in relation to his eye within 48 hours after the incident he may have avoided permanent damage. 

Paul is furious because his weakened eyesight means that he can no longer work as a commercial airline pilot. Paul retires from his job as a pilot. 

Without the income from his job, Paul is forced to sell his investment property. Paul believes that the housing market is at a 5 year low. Paul’s real estate agent told Paul that if he was able to hold onto his investment property for another 12 months he would make $50,000 more on the sale. Paul says he must sell to cover his living expenses. 

Paul believes he is entitled to an order for damages resulting from the incident at the Golf Club. Paul wants to claim all his future medical expenses in relation to his left eye, plus 10 years’ worth of lost income (he was due to retire in 10 years), plus $50,000 loss resulting from the early sale of his investment property. 
Required

Advise Paul regarding damages. Which amounts can Paul claim as damages resulting from the incident at the Golf Club?

(a) Issue:

The issue of the case is whether there is any provision in law that can identify the family relationship to create implications in case of any binding agreement or not.

Relevant laws:

The present case is based on the law regarding the offer and acceptance. Contract is a agreement binding by law. Agreement is a process by which one person promises to do or not to do anything. All legal agreements are binding in nature. In a valid contract, agreement is important. In agreement, there is a provision regarding the offer and acceptance. Offer and acceptance are the essentials of a contract. When a person proposes to do certain things to other person, he makes an offer to the person. When the person, to whom the offer is created, accepts the same, it becomes acceptance to the contract. Therefore, offer and acceptance are the two main provisions of contract. In Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball [1892], it was held that an unilateral offer can be accepted by performing the terms of the offer. Under the Australian Contract Act, except offer and acceptance, there need to be certain more essentials to be present to make a contract legal.

The primary object of the contract is to bind by legal relationship. It is mentioned  under the law that when an offer is accepted, it makes an agreement, but not a contract. therefore, it can be stated that the primary object of the contract can be offer and acceptance, but there are certain other essentials to be followed up regarding the same. Meeting of mind is another essential regarding the contract. In Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, the principle of legal binding has been followed up. Therefore, it can be stated that the intention to create legal relation is one of the major requirements regarding the commencement of contract. It is the rule that if both the parties are not agreed to the terms of the contract, it cannot be valid in nature. In Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, it was held that mere silence cannot be termed as an acceptance. This case made an exception to the basic rule of acceptance. However, it is the duty of the person to whom offer is made to deny the offer expressly.

Application:

In the present case, Uncle Peter has made an offer to his nephew Brett regarding a car. The offer has been made by way of letter. However, the postal rule will not applicable here as Peter must let his nephew about the offer. In this case, it has been observed that Brett had not accepted the offer and the postal rule regarding an offer is valid when the offer is accepted.

It was deemed by Peter that if Brett had not reply back until Friday, the offer would be accepted by silence. However, the said offer should have to be come into the knowledge of the intended person.

Within family, there can be an agreement and the principle is followed up in Balfour v Balfour. It has been observed in the case that contract can be done if there is an intention to bind them legally. In this case, it is clear from the statement of peter that he wanted to make a contract with his nephew and did not want to bestow the car upon him. Therefore, it can be stated that Peter wanted to bind in a legal relationship.

Part (b)

Conclusion:

Therefore, it can be stated that if there is a clarification regarding the intention of the parties to be legally banded, binding agreement can be done within the members of the family.

(b) Issue:

The issue is whether Brett has accepted the offer by his uncle or not.

Relevant rules:

Under the Australian Contract Act, the common rule is, until the contractual parties have accepted the offer, no contract will be formed. Communication plays an important role in this case. It is stated that both the offer and acceptance need to be communicated and until the conditions are fulfilled, contract could not be formed.

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, it was held by the court that if the condition of the offer will be abide by a person, it will be presumed that the offer has been accepted by the other person. It is a fact that if a person gains certain advantages from the contractual offer, law to deny the offer will bar him and has to pay compensation regarding the same.

Application:

In the present case, it has been mentioned that the offer had not known to Brett till Friday. Therefore, it can be stated that there was no acceptance. However, it is mentioned that Brett knew the fact that Diesel runs the car and knowing the fact, he use the car for four days. Therefore, it can be stated from the essence of the principle laid down under Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball that Brett had accepted the offer by way of follow the conditions of the offer. He had gained certain advantages regarding the same as he used to drive the vehicle to his college. Therefore, it can be stated Brett accepts that offer made by Peter.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it can be concluded that Brett has accepted the offer as he used the car as long as he used it.

(c) Issue:

The issue is whether the consideration made by Peter is valid or not.

Relevant laws:

There are certain principles present in the contract that are mandatory in nature. Consideration is one of such essentials. By consideration, it is meant that certain things are to be done in lieu of certain acts or things. It is quite a barter system. A consideration is need not to be fairly in nature. It is enough if the consideration is fair. It is also stated that the consideration must be real. The principle had applied in the case of White v Bluett (1853).  In Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960], it was held that a consideration needed not be adequate but be fair enough to create a contract. It has been stated by the Court that it is depended upon the parties to the contract. Inadequate consideration is only applicable where the acceptance has been made through coercion or undue influence. If there is no provision regarding the coercion, the question of inadequate consideration will not be valid. In Roscorla v Thomas [1842], it has been stated that the consideration is not necessarily be adequate regarding a contract.    

Application:

It is stated that the value of the car is $2000. In the present case, the Peter had made an offer to sell his car at the consideration of $500. It may not seem to be adequate enough regarding the costing of a diesel car. However, the consideration is valid as the consideration amount is fair regarding the direction of Peter. It is the mentality of the parties to the contract. The offeror wanted to sell his car at that price to his nephew. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the consideration is inadequate in nature and no contract shall be occurred regarding the same. it can be stated that the occurrence of a contract does not depend on the value of the consideration.    

Conclusion:

Therefore, it can be stated the consideration amount is valid in this case.

(d) Issue:

The issue is whether Brett can have the right to avoid the obligation by mistaken belief.

Relevant rule:

It was held in Bell v Lever Bros. [1932] that the principle of common mistake can be applied only in the case where the person in same sense as it was made by the offeror cannot accept the offer. However, if the person gain certain things out of the mistake, he could not be exempted from the contractual liabilities.

Application:

It is clear from the intention of Brett that he did not want a diesel car but he had used the car for three weeks. He knew the fact that Diesel and not petrol drive this car. Therefore, law to deny the same and evade the liabilities regarding the contract bars him. In his case, the principle of Bell’s case will be applicable.

Conclusion:

Therefore, by the following rules prescribed herein, it can be stated that Brett cannot avoid the contractual responsibility regarding the same as he already use the car regarding the beneficial purpose.

Reference:

Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 3 All ER 25

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.

Popiw v Popiw [1959] VR 197

Wigan v Edwards (1973)