Contract Law Consumer Act 2010 Free samples-Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Describe about the Contract Law for Consumer Act 2010. Answer: Introduction The report provides the over view and the critical analysis of the two different cases that are the Sydney City Council V West (1965) And The Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971). The contract law of an exclusion cause with determining the invalid reasons that avoids the liability of the conduct. It thereby helps in determining the conduct of the contract that lies beyond the scope of the contract that seems to be determined between the above mentioned two case studies undertaken. The comparison and the contrast of the case studies are depicted in this report with provide the current findings and the rulings regarding the report. The findings are depicted on the basis of the Australian Legal Position that is depicted in this case and thereby the guarantees are implied on the sellers by the consumers to ensure the protection of the Australian Consumer Law[1]. In this both the cases undertaken, depicts the implementation of Competition and the Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) is also focused for the appropriate explanation of the contrast and the comparison of the case studies undertaken. Identification Of The Facts Sydney City Council V West(1965) Sydney city council v west (1965) and thornton v shoe lane parking ltd (1971) are two different cases. Though both the cases are related with the issue with the parking ticket and the contract made, one of the cases is directed toward the council whereas the other is issued toward the ticket machine. Looking upon the SYDNEY CITY COUNCIL V WEST (1965) case, the plaintiff was handed with the ticked. The ticket had its terms and condition with the exclusion clauses stating that the council wont be responsible for any loss of liability no matter how it occurred[2]. In this case the contract was formed in the form of the ticket with numerous clauses. It was also instructed to the customer to present the ticket for stamping before the pickup. In this case, a man losses his ticket and broke onto wests car and take it out of the car park bluffing the car park attendant. This was the reason west the council for the breach of contract and bailment. But going through the case, court held the fa ct that even though the presence of the exclusion clause in the terms of contract, exclusion was unenforceable[3]. The loss was caused by the act of the defendant which is not contemplated and was unauthorised by the agreement. Due to this particular reason the exclusion clauses wont protect against the liabilities that has been arose from that act which is stated by the four corners of the contracts. Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking Ltd(1971) Similarly, THORNTON V SHOE LANE PARKING LTD (1971) was the case where plaintiff form a contract by receiving the ticket from the machine by proceeding with the payment. The valid offer was made to the plaintiff as he entered the carpark seeing the clauses on the entrance i.e., at owners risk. The contract was concluded as Thornton drove pass to the entrance and as he obtained the ticket[4]. The plaintiff gets injured in the car park while he returned to enter the car park to pick up his car. Due to this reason Thornton cannot sue the car park for the car damage but can successfully sue the car park for his injuries. Interpretation Of The Rule Governing The Issue In the given case study THORNTON V SHOE LANE PARKING LTD (1971)s, the contract was formed when the plaintiff inserted money into the machines and the ticket was received. A clause cannot be included after the contract is terminated and once the offers is accepted then new terms and conditions cannot included in the contract[5]. If the conditions and terms are brought to attention after the plaintiff accepted the offer then it will not form the part of the contract. The terms and conditions in the contract are governed as per the contract law in Australia. The condition in the contract was at owners risk and plaintiff accepted the contract when he drove and ticket was also taken by him. The conditions and terms on the contract was not the part of the contract as because the contract was entered already. The exemptions clause did not form the part of the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff had been suffered from damage at the car park. However, the defendant was depended on the exemptio n clause that was printed on the ticket and appealed against the rejection of its defence. The exemption clause states that a clearer notice should be given to the customer before it would be incorporated in to the contract. The legal rights are available as per the contract law[6]. Therefore, it can be concluded from the case study that the liability was rested with the multi story car park of the owner as the terms and conditions of exception clause comes after the conclusion of contract. The interpretation regarding the SYDNEY CITY COUNCIL V WEST (1965) determines various clauses that are represented with respect to the case study determined. The clauses states that the defendant did not accepted any responsibility with the loss or the injury occurred for the vehicle. The plaintiffs car seems to be stolen due to the negligence of the defendant employee. The other clause that is determined in this case study is determined by the unauthorised permission provided to the attendant. Thereby the breaching of the contract regarding the terms is depicted which are indicated in this case study[7]. Due to the above reasons, the issue of providing an excuse for the negligence is depicted and thereby as per the law rules, the operation of an exclusion clause in relation to the fundamental breaching is depicted in this case. Despite of taking the decisions that are undertaken for the case study, the contract seems to be breaching of the contract made by the Sydney city council an d thereby the operation of the exclusion clause is related to the interpreted complications which are depicted in this case study. Henceforth the interpretation of the exclusion clause is determined by constructing the clause according to the natural and the ordinary meaning depicted in this case study[8]. The appearance regarding the nature and the objects depicted in this case study provides the case of negligence which is depicted through the exemption clauses that are depicted in this case study. Identification Of The Issue And Application Of The Rule To The Fact In SYDNEY CITY COUNCIL V WEST (1965) case, it is clear that the negligence of the defendant causes the theft that has occurred. For instance, Davis v Pearce parking case station ptyltd(1954) is a similar case where the plaintiff parked her vehicle in the defendants car park where her vehicle gets stolen. The parking station has an exclusion clauses stating in the receipt garaged at the owners risk and parking station will not be responsible for the loss or damage of any description[9]. But the car was damaged and was stolen when the defendant moved the car to the public street leaving the ignition on with the keys on it. The court held that exclusion clause was effective to not pay off the liability of the parking station as the exclusion clause will not protect a party from any damages for any loss if the breach of the contract was outside of the particular place. But in sydney city council v West (1965) case,the Council couldn't depend on the prohibition provision when the offended party's car was stolen from the Domain car park[10]. Perused entirely, the prohibition condition did not cover the Council lead and they were held obligated. In any case, plan of action to this standard of development might be vanquished where the dialect of a rejection statement is adequately unequivocal to build up, on the strict perusing, that the condition was expected to reason direct that lay outside the four corners of the contract. Conclusion The contract law is one of the important law that bind two and more parties in few clauses where some parties obliged to do some certain things in exchanges of some things. Here in both cases the sydney city council v west (1965) and thornton v shoe lane parking ltd (1971) the contract has been violated and for the violation of the contract the plaintiffs had to face substantial injuries and difficulties[11]. The first case of sydney city council v west (1965), it was case of negligence that void the contractual agreement between the parties as the negligence from the sydney city council was reason of significant damage of the plaintiff west. In second case thornton v shoe lane parking ltd (1971) the car parking company shoe lane car parking was not liable for any damage occurred to the car as per the contract but the company is liable for the injuries happened to thornton. References Carter, j. W,carter's guide to australian contract law(lexisnexis, 2006) Carter, john w,contract law in australia(lexisnexis orders/service, 2012) Doris, martin, "promising options, dead ends and the reform of australian contract law" (2013) 34legal studies Ellinghaus, m. P,australian cases on contract(code press, 2007) Mann, trischa,australian law dictionary(oxford university press, 2009) Radan, peter and john gooley,principles of australian contract law(lexisnexis butterworths, 2009) Watson, j. A, justin t gleeson and ruth c. A higgins,historical foundations of australian law(federation press, 2013) Willett, chris, "the functions of transparency in regulating contract terms: uk and australian approaches" (2011) 60international and comparative law quarterly Exclusion clauses - stephen wawn associates sydney legal experts will disputes(2016) stephen wawn associates sydney legal experts will disputes https://www.stephenwawn.com.au/commercial-law-litigation-disputes/pure-economic-loss-caused-by-negligent-misstatement-and-the-duty-of-care/exclusion-clauses/ Thornton v shoe lane parking ltd (1971), (2016) https://thornton v shoe lane parking ltd (1971)