- You are expected to independently research the relevant legal area and write an answer to the question prescribed in the assignments – Question 1 and Question 2.
- The word limit for each of the Assignment must be between 850 to 1000 words.
- Harvard Referencing
- Contract Law – Your answer must provide relevant justifications and refer to legal principles and cases to support your discussion.
Bob Burke is a graduate in marketing. After working for a well-known marketing firm for three years, he decides to establish his own business specialising in marketing issues relevant to business websites. He inspects an office in a new shopping centre in Melbourne owned by Southfield Shopping Centre Ltd (Southfield). The managing director of Southfield is Ken Keen. Bob wants an assurance to that effect that no other similar business will be allowed to lease premises at the shopping centre before he signs the lease. This is verbally agreed and given by Ken. Bob signs the lease agreement without reading it. The lease agreement contains a clause to the effect that the lease terms and conditions represent the entire agreement between the parties and excludes any oral or verbal representations by any representative of Southfield. The shopping centre proves to be a financial failure for Southfield due to the high vacancy rate of the shops. Accordingly, six months later, the company allows another business that is similar to Bob’s to lease premises in order to help reduce the financial pressure upon it. As a result, Bob’s business declines due to the competition. When Bob complains to Ken, he is told that there is no clause in the lease agreement preventing the company from letting premises to a competitor in the same industry, and that the verbal assurance given by Ken is not binding because of the disclaimer clause in the lease contract. Advise Bob of any rights he may have under common law and statute
Andrew and Margaret visit their local travel agent to discuss the possibility of taking a holiday on an island off the Queensland coast. Neither has previously travelled outside Melbourne and they explain to the agent that they would like his advice on the best value available, specifying they would like a restful holiday. They require access to a nice beach and facilities for golf and water skiing. The agent recommends that they go to Gunk Island, which he assures them, will satisfy all their stated requirements. They book accordingly. Gunk Island fails to live up to their expectations. Their accommodation is a deserted cabin with no water, no toilet facilities and no vehicle access. It appears to have been deserted for some time. The only beach within walking distance is covered with rocks and coral, and is very unsuitable for swimming. There are no facilities for water skiing and the only golf course on the island is a mini golf course in the village, four kilometres away, which has been vandalised by youths. The price paid by Andrew and Margaret for their holiday package was approximately the same as for most alternative resorts for which they had been shown brochures by the travel agent. Upon their return to Melbourne, Andrew and Margaret consult you and state that they wish to take legal actions against the travel agent. They point out that, apart from the cost of the holiday, they have incurred other expenses. These include the cost of medical treatment for Margaret, who suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of unsatisfactory facilities on Gunk Island; Margaret’s anticipated loss of wages (she will be unable to resume work for at least three months); and the cost of additional airfares incurred. They instruct you because the facilities at the resort were so poor they decided to catch an earlier flight home. As a result, they had to pay an extra amount for their flight as their holiday package required them to fly home on a specific date. Advise Andrew and Margaret as to their prospects of success in an action against the travel agent. If they succeed, what will be the extent of the remedies that will be available to them? Your answer must provide relevant justifications and refer to legal principles and cases to support your discussion.