Legal Cases, Tribal Law, And Lease Agreements Essay.

The issue raised in this case is whether the landlord has the right to terminate the lease agreement on non-payment of the rent? Whether the loss of bargain can be claimed by the landlord for non-compliance with an essential term of the contract?

The issue raised in Pryor v Given case is whether a party can be held liable for making a misleading and fraudulent statement regarding their products while selling the land?

The issue raised in Pryor v Given case is whether the company is liable under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading customers?

The issue raised in this case is whether the contractual term can be enforced by Pedro on Lisa?

Pryor v Given: Misleading Customers

An old tribe situated in the forest of South Africa has relied on traditional ways to handle the disputes between two tribe members relating to any violent act. Now the tribe has established a new constitution which will make the process of adjudication more formal by defining the roles and penalties imposed on the guilty parties. There are various rules established in the constitution in order to protect the tribe members from violence. The objective of developing and adding these rules in the constitution is to maintain peace in the tribe along with making the process of adjudication formal. These rules stop domestic violence in the tribe and prevent members from using violence because they know that they will be punished for their actions. The first rule is that the member who uses violence against another member can be imprisoned by the court for a specific sentence based on the seriousness of the violence.

The elements which were given by HLA Hart in ‘Hart’s three-part legal system’ are present in the constitution of the tribe. For example, these sentences apply over everyone equally, and ambiguity did not exist regarding the law. Another rule is that financial penalties are imposed on the members to compensate the aggrieved party. Lastly, the member who is a habitual offender is discharged from the tribe. These rules also comply with Hart’s three-part legal system. The procedures regarding changes in these laws are clearly established in the constitution as per the rules of change. The procedure of adjudication is given in the constitution as well according to rules of adjudication. Thus, these rules are focused on reducing violence against tribe members and establish peace in the tribe.

The legal system established in India complies with the provisions provided in Hart’s three-part legal system. The legal system is governed by key legislation including the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. In Australia, the penalties for criminal actions are given under the Crimes Act. These legislations provide various regulations regarding penalties which imposed by the government on a person who found guilty of a criminal offense. The penalties imposed on criminals include imprisonment for a period based on their crimes, financial compensation paid to the victim or the state, life imprisonment for serious offenses and capital punishment. In case of serious crimes such as murder, attempt to murder, rape, and crimes against the society, life imprisonment is given in India.

Enforcing Contractual Term: Pedro v Lisa

The term of life imprisonment in India is 14 years or 20 years which depend upon the case. In Australia, the life imprisonment is for 25 years, and it is also given for serious crimes. In India, the punishment for theft is three years in jail or fine or both, whereas, in Australia, the imprisonment for minimum ten years is given for theft. The punishment for kidnapping in India is seven years imprisonment or fine or both, whereas, 14 to 25 years of imprisonment is given in Australia. In rarest cases, capital punishment can be given in India, whereas, it has been abolished from Australia. Hart’s three-part legal system applies to both countries since their legal system is borrowed from the English legal system. The rules are clear and recognised by everyone, and the procedure for changing them is established as well. The process of adjudication is defined as well based on geographic factors or seriousness of crimes.tract?

The lease agreement is not different from other commercial agreements, and the rent payable by the tenant is determined as the consideration of the contract. The parties to a lease agreement have to ensure that they comply with the guidelines and terms included in the contract to avoid legal consequences. The payment of rent is an essential term of the lease agreement based on which the whole lease agreement can be terminated by the landlord in case the tenant did not comply with this term. Furthermore, parties have to comply with the terms and conditions of any deed which is formed based on the lease agreement in order to avoid payment of compensation to the party after the breach of such term.

Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd. V Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd is a relevant case in Australian law because it recognises the right of a landlord to terminate a lease agreement based on non-payment of rent. Transit Management Pty Ltd (Transit) gives its property on a 15-year lease to Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Limited (Duffy). After some time, Duffy was not able to afford the rent of the property. A deed was formed between Transit and Duffy in which the property was sub-let to another party. Transit sold the property to Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd (Gumland) in 2001 along with the rights associated with the lease agreement. The sub-lease was expired in 2002, and the sub-tenant decided that it did not want to extend the term of the lease. The sub-tenant also decided to pay only half of the rent of the property which was decided in the sub-lease. Gumland asked Duffy to pay the rent in arrear; however, Duffy ignored such warning.

Tribal Law: South African Tribe's New Constitution

Later, Gumland filed a lawsuit against Duffy in order to recover the rent of the property along with interest. Gumland also demanded loss of bargain from Duffy regarding breach of the deed formed between them. Duffy provided its arguments in the court based on Shevill v Builders Licensing Board case that payment of rent is only one term of the lease agreement based on which the entire contract cannot be terminated by Gumland. Furthermore, Gumland did not have the right to demand the loss of bargain on non-compliance with the term of the lease. The court rejected the arguments of Duffy and accepted the claims of Gumland. The court provided that the payment of rent is an essential term of the lease agreement and the breach of such term gives the right to the landlord to terminate the lease agreement. Furthermore, the court provided that the deed formed between the parties was part of the lease agreement based on which the landlord has the right to demand the loss of bargain on the breach of term of such agreement.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the landlord has the right to terminate the lease agreement if the rent is not paid as per the terms of the contract by the tenant because it is an essential term of the lease agreement. Furthermore, the landlord can demand the loss of bargain if an essential term of the deed is breached by the tenant. The court provided remedies by ordering Duffy to make a payment of $2,096,514 to Gumland for the arrear of rent along with interest and the loss of bargain.

Misrepresentation is referred to an untrue representation made by a party to encourage another party in order to form a legal contract. The Misrepresentation is divided into two parts which include innocent and fraudulent. When a false representation is made by the party (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in the statement, or (3) recklessly to induce another contract into forming a contract is considered as fraudulent misrepresentation as given in the case of Derry v Peek. In case a contract is formed based on fraudulent misrepresentation, the innocent party has the right to set aside the contract.

In this case, the corporation was operating in the real estate sector, and it issued an advertisement to sell land. The advertisement included pictures of the house which was for sale. Furthermore, the corporation also provided a caption in the advertisement which provides that the house is “a wonderful place to live”. The advertisement was made by the company to attract more customers and induce them to enter into a contract in order to purchase the house. The corporation knew about the fact that the land which they are advertising is subject to a project scheme yet still they displayed the advertisement. By making this false representation, the company wanted to attract potential buyers to encourage them to sign a contract with the company.

Hart's Three-Part Legal System: A comparative analysis of India and Australia's Legal Systems

Conclusion

Conclusively, the court held the company liable for fraudulent misrepresentation towards its customers.

The Australian Consumer Law implements a number of regulations on corporations in order to ensure the safety of consumers. Section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act provides that parties must not make any representation regarding their products or services which is misleading or deceptive or which is likely to do so. Section 30 prohibits the parties from including statements regarding their products or services in the advertisements which are misleading or deceptive or likely to do so relating to land or selling of land.

A suit was filed against the company for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of section 30 of ACL. The party argued in the court that the advertisement issued by the company depicts that the house might be built on land. However, in reality, the land which was advertised was subject to a planning scheme, and no house was built on such land. The scheme provided various onerous conditions which parties had to meet and approved before building anything on such land. The court accepted the claim made by the party by providing that the advertisement made by the party is misleading and deceptive. Thus, the court provided that the corporation is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation based on which any party who entered into a contract with the corporation based on such advertisement has the right to set aside the contract. The company found guilty of violating section 30 of ACL. This case is relevant because it shows that corporations cannot mislead buyers by making a false representation regarding their products or services.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the enterprise was found guilty of breaching section 30 of ACL for misleading its customers. The remedies available in this case are termination of the contract and payment of damages to aggrieved parties.

The parties to a contract can hold each other liable for breaching the terms of the contract. The party who did not comply with the terms of the contract can be held liable by another party based on which the terms can be legally enforced on the party if the contract is valid. In order to form a valid contract, certain elements must be present in the contract. Firstly, an order must be given by the offeror to form the contract which must have the authority to bind the parties to the terms of the offer as provided in the case of Harvey v Facey. Furthermore, the acceptance of the offeree must be received by the offeror within the appropriate time. After receiving a valid acceptance, the agreement is cored between the parties; however, it is important that the acceptance must be communicated because silent did not amount to acceptance as given in Felthouse v Bindley case.

Lease Agreements: Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd. V Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd

The intention of the parties to a contract is another key element is necessary to be present in order to form a valid contract. Parties must have intention to legally bound each other to the terms of the contract due to which agreements formed in social settings did not constitute as a valid contract as given in Balfour v Balfour case. The parties who are forming a contract must have the capacity to enter into a legal relationship with another party. Parties who are unsound mind, insolvent or minor did not have the capacity to form a legal contract with other parties without any supervision. Lastly, the contract must have a valid consideration without which it cannot be formed. The consideration of a contract is anything which has certain value in the eyes of the law. The consideration must not be past as well because the consideration which is past cannot form a valid contract between parties unless it is preceded by a request of the party as given in the Lampleigh v Braithwaite case. The terms which are included in a contract regarding restraint of trade are considered as invalid since freedom of trade is a fundamental principle of Australian capitalist system. However, if the restraints of trade are justified, then they are considered valid. For example, after purchasing a business, the new owner did not want the previous owner to set up a new business in the same location immediately after the contract.

In the case of Pedro and Lisa, Pedro formed a contract with Lisa to purchase her business of French Jewellery. The contract also contained a term which specified that Lisa could not open another French Jewellery business anywhere in Australia for a period of two years. After one year of the contract, Lisa opened a French Jewellery business in Cairns, Queensland. All the essential elements of a contract were present in the contract formed between Pedro and Lisa. The term included in the contract to restrict Lisa from opening her business is justified because Pedro did not want her to become her competition. However, she has opened a small business in Cairns, Queensland which is a separate territory after one year; thus, Pedro cannot enforce her to shut down her business.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the contract formed between Lisa and Pedro is valid, however, Pedro cannot enforce the term because it is not justified for him to shut down Lisa’s business which is in another territory, and she has started it after one year. In this case, Lisa has the remedy of ‘restraint of trade’ principle based on which Pedro cannot shut down her business.

References

Courtney W, Contractual Indemnities (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014)

Nariman F, India’s legal system: can it be saved? (Penguin Random House India, 2017)

Parkinson P, Tradition & Change in Australian Law (Law Book Company, 1994)

Paterson J, Robertson A and Duke A, Principles of contract law (Thomson Reuters, 2012)

Turner C, Trone J and Gamble R, Concise Australian Commercial Law (Thomson Reuters, 2017)

Balfour v Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337

Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J35

Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd. V Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 237

Harvey v Facey (1893) UKPC 1

Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) EWHC KB J17

Pryor v Given (1979) 24 ALR 442

Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1892) 149 CLR 620

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Crimes Act 1914

Evidence Act 1872

Indian Penal Code 1860

Bell Lawyers, What property can the court deal with? (2017) Bell Lawyers < https://www.bell-lawyers.com.au/publications/property-faqs/ >

Jade, Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd. V Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd (2008) Jade < https://www.jade.io/article/61095 >

Szabo Solicitors, False and Misleading Representations in Property Transactions (2015) Szabo Solicitors < https://www.szabosolicitors.com.au/Blogs-Articles/False-and-misleading-representations-in-property-transactions.html >