Negligence

The main legal issue presented by the question is whether [P] can successfully sue [D] for negligence.
The rule of law states that negligence occurs if [D] owns [P] a (1) Duty of care (DOC), (2) Breach of DOC, (3) Causes P actual
damages/ injuries/ losses, and (4) the damages are reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. Applying this rule of law to the
facts of this question, we have to prove all the four elements above to have a successful claim for negligence.

1) Duty of care
The first legal issue is whether [D] owns [P] a DOC regarding physical injury/ purely psychological injury/ purely economic loss/
negligent misstatement.

Case 1: Physical injuries

A. The DOC is established
I: The legal issue is whether [D], the person(driver/manufacturer/owner of property/professional)did/did not do sth; own[P],
who(other driver, passenger, pedestrian, owner of property on the strees/customer/occupy/client) was injured by [D]s action, a
DOC for physical injury.
Motorists Road users (Imbree v McNeilly, 2008). (Exp: Motorists usually own a recognized DOC to other drivers,
pedestrians and owner of property near the road (Imbree v McNeilly, 2008))
Doctors Patients (Rogers v Whitaker, 1992)
Solicitors Clients (Hawkins v Clayton, 1988) Cvn phplut
Manufactures Consumers ( Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932)
Occupiers Guests/ People who come onto their premises ( Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, 1987)
Architects Clients/ People who occupy the building they design (Voli v Inglewood Shire Council, 1963)
Employers Employees
Agents Principal
Directors Company
R: According to Lord AtkinsNeighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932), we owe a DOC to our neighbours who are closely
and directly affected by our acts or omissions, thus, as a reasonable person, we should think about these people when we are
about to act or not to act.
A: Here, when [D]did/did not(drive 150km/h at noon in downtown), it was RF that harm to people like [P] could result b c
(the human brains reaction and response time to visual images is not fast enough to safely control a heavy, hard steel motorbike at
such high speed, and when it goes out of control, the law of motion and inertia will cause It to veer off the road and hit anything
including people near the road, whose bodies are soft and will sustain injury upon impact. Also, at noon in downtown there are
many pedestrian, so it can be expected that such injuries can happen).
- Also, [P] was [D]s neighbor b/c [P]was (people or property on th street/occupier of Ds customer, client or patient)
who is RF being injured by [D]s action. (Levi v. Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd) (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v.
Zaluzna) (Donoghue v. Stevenson)
C:Thus, [D] did/did not owe to [P] a DOC for physical injury.

B. Failure to act
I: The legal issue is whether [D], the person(driver/manufacturer/owner of property/professional)s failure to act did/did not do
sth; owe[P], who(other driver, passenger, pedestrian, owner of property on the street/customer/occupy/client)was injured by
[D]s failure to act, a DOC.
Motorists Road users (Imbree v McNeilly, 2008). (Exp: Motorists usually own a recognized DOC to other drivers,
pedestrians and owner of property near the road (Imbree v McNeilly, 2008))
Doctors Patients (Rogers v Whitaker, 1992)
Solicitors Clients (Hawkins v Clayton, 1988) C vn php lut
Manufactures Consumers ( Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932)
Occupiers Guests/ People who come onto their premises ( Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, 1987)
Architects Clients/ People who occupy the building they design (Voli v Inglewood Shire Council, 1963)

Employers Employees
Agents Principal
Directors Company

R: According to Lord Atkins Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932), we owe a DOC to our neighbors who are closely
and directly affected by our acts or omissions, thus, as a reasonable person, we should think about these people when we are
about to act or not to act.
A: Generally, there is no duty to act to prevent harm to another person. Such a duty exists if it is RF [D]s failure to act could cause
harm to somebody like [P] (i.e., the neighbor test) and either.
- Parties are in relationship or reliance and dependence
- [D]has control over the person(Club Italia v. Ritchie)or property causing the harm(Australian Safeway Stores v.
Zaluzna) (Modbury Triangle v. Anzil)
Here, while it is RF that [D]s failure to act could cause harmto nearby pedestrian such as[P]b/c (failing to push Sb out of a
speeding, out of control motorbike will result in that person getting hit).There is a/no relationship of reliance and dependence
here.[P] and [D] were strangers; [P] did not /did rely or depend on [D]. Also, [D]cannot/ can control over ([A] the motorist
or his motorbike. The motorbike was control solely by [A] and by the law of physics).
Also, [P] was [D]s neighbor b/c [P]was (people or property on the street/occupier of Ds customer, client or patient) who is RF
being injured by [D]s action.(Levi v. Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd) (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna) (Donoghue
v. Stevenson)
C: Thus, [D]did/did not owe a DOC to [P].

Case 2: Negligence misstatement:

I: The legal issue is whether [D], the person (professional) did sth (make the report carelessly); owed [P], whose business
suffered a monetary loss due to (Ds bad report), a DOC for negligence misstatement.
R-A: To prove that , the following 4 MLC v. Evatt elements must be weighted (Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Co. v.
Evatt)
a. The advice was of a business or serious nature (Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd 1964
Here, it is obvious that the subject was/was not of a business/serious nature because it does/does not cost lots of money.
Thus, this element is/is not satisfied.
b. The defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on the advice (Rentokil Pty Ltd v
Channon 1990)
Here, [D]should/should not have known that he/she is being trusted because it was/was not a part of his/her job. As
known to [P], [D]is(a successful teacher/auditor/operating an audit firm). This means with/without his/her typical
knowledge about this field, [D]can/cannot give accurately information to [P] to make the right decision. Thus, this
element is/is not satisfied.
c. And it is reasonable in the circumstances for the recipients to accept and reply upon the advice.
Apply even if the advice is little more than the provision of information (L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta
City Council [No 1] 1981)
C: Thus, [D]did/did not owe to [P] a DOC for negligence misstatement.

2) Breach of DOC
The second legal issue here is whether [D] failed to meet the required standard of care (SOC)
I: The second legal issue here is whether [D] failed to meet the required standard of care (SOC)
R: Here, the rule is whatever a reasonable ordinary careful person (ROCP) should have done give the same set of circumstances. If
[D] is engaged in an activity requiring special knowledge or skill, we compare [D]s conduct to ROCP other lawyers) with the same
knowledge or skill. 4 Romeo factors will be analyzed to know how ROCP should act in the same situation (Romeo v.
Conservation Commission of Northern Territory).

A:
1. The probability of harm:
It means how likely it is that SO will be injured if [D] did not act reasonable carefully.When the degree of probability
of the risk of injury is higher, a ROCP would be more careful.
Here, because(almost certainly no one can control the motorbike at that speed and high population density on the street
means the chance people will get hit is very high) OR(it is difficult to make the report carefully when sleepless); thus
(it is possible that SO can be hit ORalmost road users, who are likely to get hit, have close family who care about them
such as family, so it is RF that the close relatives will suffer serious psychological sickness when one family member get
injury OR retail business next to street, which are likely to get hit, tend to rely on each other to draw a foot traffic into a
neighbour, it can be expected that if one business shuts down to rebuild, the neighbor businesses will get less customers
which can lead to bankrupt) OR(it is possible that the business will lose a lot of investment due to the inaccurate
financial report).Thus, the probability of harm is high/medium/low which means [D]failed/did not fail to act as a
ROCP.(Roger v.Whitaker)
2. The gravity of harm:
It considers the worst possible thing that could happen and the number of people could be affected if D did not act
reasonable carefully. The higher the magniture of risk, the more careful ROCP would be. The worst
(physical/psychological/pure economic/negligence misstatement)harms that could happen from doing Sth(driving so
fast) OR(making serious errors in the financial statement) and the number of people on the street at that time and place
ORclose relatives of victims are so emotionally traumatized that they commit suicide or suffer irreversible psychological
injury ORthe loss of customers will force the massage shop to close bankrupt) OR (causing economic harm to
potential investors, lenders or other people with the company).Thus, the gravity of harm is high/medium/low which
means [D] failed/did not fail to act as a ROCP.(Paris v. Stepney Borough Council)
3. The burden of taking precautions:
Could the defendant prevent the careless act? And how difficult and expensive it is for D to eliminate the risk? The
easier and cheaper it is, the more careful ROCP would be.
Here, it was very easy and cheap/difficult and exspensive for [D] to avoid(the accidence, mistake)by(slow down
the speed and drive carefully OR start to do the report earlier and make it carefully). Then, no one can suffer(physical
injury OR mental illness due to the injury of their family member OR financial loss due to the damage of neighbour
business)OR(economic loss as a result of bad report).Thus, [D]failed/did not fail to act as a ROCP.(ODwyer v. Leo
Buring Pty Ltd)
4. The social utility of the activity:
It means whether D had any other conflicting priorities that prevent [D] from eliminating the risk. The fewer the
priorities, the more careful the ROCP would be.
Here, there are no any other reasons for [D]to do(driving so fast)OR (Boredom) is not a good reason for (driving
150km/h) OR ([D]s child was dying and needed to get into hospital immediately and that was the reason for his/her
drove at 150km/h).Thus, [D]failed/did not fail to act as a ROCP.(Romeo v. Conservation Commission of the Northern
Territory)
C:As discuss above, the (1) is, (2) is, (3) is, as well as no (4) involve. Therefore, ROCP would not/would have done Sth
(driven so fast) OR (given a bad advice)like [D] resulting in (the death to Sb OR the mental harm to the relatives of D
accidents victim OR economic loss to neighbour business due to the rebuilding of the damaged property) OR (financial loss due to
incorrect business statement). Thus, [D]breached/ did not breach a DOC.

3) Causation
I: The third legal issue is whether [P] can prove that [D] caused all his/her damages, injuries or losses (DIL).
R-A: To prove that [D] caused [P]s damage/injuries/loss, [P] must prove (1) actual DIL and (2) But for test.
1. Actual DIL: Here, [P] has suffered actual DIL in the form of (broken leg/psychiatric fee/loss income) (Perre v.
Apand Pure economic loss) (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd)
2. But for test: But for [D]s actions, [P] would not have suffered the actual DIL. If we could go back in time and take

away the [D]s carelessness (driving carelessly), [P]would not suffer(broken leg/psychiatric fee/loss income) b/c
([D] would not have lost control and [P] would not have been hit. And unless [P] had been hit, [P] would not have been
outside the hospital on the day and he would not have been robbed and stolen his/her Iphone 6s OR if [P] had not injured,
he/she could have fought back and saved the Iphone 6s when [P] was robbed).(March v. E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd)

C: Thus, 2 elements are/are not satisfied and [P]can/cannot prove that [D] caused all [P]s damages.

4) Remoteness
I: The forth legal issue is whether the types of injuries [P]suffered were not too remote from the time of the accident or it
was RF that the specific type of damages suffered by [P] could result.
R: The rule is the [P]s specific damages were not too remote if the plaintiff could prove that these damages were RF by [D]
at the time of the accident. (Caterson v. Commisioner for Railways)
A: When [D] carelessly chose to (drive so fast), it was RF that people (road users) like [P] would be injured as a result.
(Injured people need to go hospital for treatment; and hospital or doctors usually do not work for free). Thus, it can be expected
that (medical bills) are the result of [D]s careless choice. Also, people who are injured cannot work b/c they are being treat
in the hospital ORcannot (move or work). Thus, it can be anticipated that lost salary of people who got injured from [D]s
careless
choice.
However, when [D] did sth(driving so fast), it cannot be expected that this action could cause(sb to be robbed).It is too
remote.
C: Thus, (personal injuries, property damaged, medical expense, lost income, pure economic loss for neighbour businesses) were
RF types of Injuries. They are not too remote and [P] can claim against [D]/Therefore,[P] lost sth(Iphone 6s) by (being
robbed) was not a RF type of injuries, and [P] thus cannot claim against [D].

Conclusion of 4 elements (DOC, Breach of DOC, Causation, Remoteness): In conclusion, based on the analysis
above of DOC, Breach of DOC, Causation and Remoteness, [D] is/is not liable to [P] in negligence.

5) Defenses: (depend if necessary, if not, leave this step)

Contributory Negligence
I: The legal issue is whether [P] can be proved for contributory negligence.
R: [P] can be proved for contributory negligence if [D] can prove 2 things: (Imbree v. McNeilly)
1. [P] was also negligent at the time of the accidents.
2. [P]s negligence contributed to [P]s damage.
A:
1. [P] was also negligent at the time of the accidents:[P]showed a lack of care for his/her own safetyb/c (chasing
football into the middle of the road) which could likely result in bodily harm from [D]s carelessness (collision with
motorist). Thus, [P] was also negligent.
2. [P]s negligence contributed to [P]s damage: B/c[P]did (ran into the street), this was one of the reasons why [P] got
injuries. Thus, [P]s negligent contribute to his/her injury.
C:Thus, [P] was contributory negligence and liability will be apportioned between [P] and [D].(if the court decides D take
60% of responsibility, D will pay)OR[P]did not do anything negligent contributing his/her DIL.

6) Vicarious Liability(employer employee)

I: The legal issue is whether [A] is vicarious liable for [D]s negligence. The law says that an employer will be vicariously
liable for the negligence of an employee if the careless act occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his
employment and not on a frolic or detour of his own (Stevens v. Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd)
R-A:
1. He was on the clock (on the working time)
2. Did the employee appear to be in the process of working for the employer? In the process of working for [A](wearing
his company uniform, driving a company vehicle, etc.), and not going off somewhere for his/her own enjoyment.
3. Was the employee at his place of work or places related to his work?

4. Was that activity a part of his job?

C: If the above factors exist, then the employer probably is vicariously liable for his/her employee/s negligence.
- Here, [D] was doig his job, which(was delivering pizza). When he/she carelessly decided to(drive too fast). He was
on the clock, which means is the process of working for(Pizza Hut), and not going off somewhere for his own
enjoyment. He was actually done(delivering pizza), what he was paid to do. [D]was acting within the scope of his
employment, so(Pizza Hut) is vicariously liable for [D]s carelessness.
OR
- Here, [D] was not doing his/her job. He was not on the clock or in the process of working within the scope of his
duties. He/she was on a frolic or detour of his own, pursuing his pleasure by going-off route, not for the companys
benefit, at the time of his careless. (Pizza Hut) is not vicariously liable for [D]s carelessness.

7 ) Occupiers liability
R: An occupier of premises owes a DOC to all persons entering the premises to ensure that the premises are safe [Australian
Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna 1987] => c breach duty of care
R: The occupier is not automatically liable for any injury sustained by a visitor to their premises. It must be established that the
occupier has in fact been careless [Phillip v Daly 1989] => khng breach duty of care

Contract formation

The legal issue is whether [A] had breach the contract with [B] because The (intention to be legally bound/ consider
capacity/ agreement offer & acceptance) should be considered in this case

1) Agreement Offer & Acceptance

Offer:

I: The legal issue here is whether a valid offer and acceptance exists between [and]
Note: If the case fall in 3 categories, we need to decide whether [Names statement] was a legal offer/unilateral offer
information
Invitation to treat [Partridge v. Crittenden] advertisement
Unilateral offers [Carlillv Carbolic Smoke Ball Company] [ Johnson v Capital City Ford Co]
(*) Unilateral offer is an offer which is made to a group or class of people instead of one, specific person, and which is
by performance by a limited number of people
Supply of information [Harvey v Facey] Ca hang ghi gi tin l $50 => n ch l information, khng phi
a- A supply of information
I: The legal issue whether [A]s statement ($50) was an offer or merely (ch) a supply of information.

R: At the time the person made the statement, does it sound like they were making a specific offer that could b
immediately to form a contract, or were they just giving general information in response to a question from the oth
[Harvey v Facey]

A: Here, [A] was just giving general information (lowest price) in response to a question from [B]. Its does not sound lik
offer that could be accepted immediately to form a contract. [A]s statement was merely a supply of information. When [
reply I accept, [B] was making an offer. There is no acceptance from [A].
C: Thus, no agreement and no contract was formed between [A] and [B]
b- An invitation to treat (A l seller)
I: The legal issue is whether [A]s advertisement of (selling an iPhone for $50) was an offer or invitation to treat.
R: Most advertisements (In the newspaper of catalogue) are usually invitation to treat, not offer. (Display of goods shop
usually invitation to treat, not offer) (Patridge v. Crittenden)

A: Here, the advertisement of [A] was just the invitation to treat to induce people who see the advertisement making an
[B]s agreement to buy (the iPhone) was just an offer, not an acceptance because no offer was given by [A] and [A
[B]s offer (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd)

C: There was no agreement (offer and acceptance) between them. Thus, no enforceable contract was formed and
sue [A] for breach of contract.

c- Unilateral offers
I: The legal issue is whether [A]s advertisement of (selling the new iPhone for $50 to the first 20 people who show up
cash) was an offer or invitation to treat

R: An advertisement making an offer to a person in the world at large (any person who learns of it), that is capable of
through performance of specific act, are real and legally offer, not mere invitation to treat (Carlill v. Carbolic S
Company Co) (Johnson v. Capital City Ford Co)

A: Here, the advertisement of [A] (for selling the iPhone) was an unilateral offer because it was made for typical people (
people coming to store with $50 in cash). Then, the conduct of [B] following [A]s requirements was an valid acceptance.
C: There was an agreement (offer and acceptance) between them. Thus, enforceable K was formed and [B] can
breach of contract.

d- Legal Offers

Rule of offer
1- Offer must be clear and complete
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exist between [A] and [B].

R: Offer must be clear and complete. They must contain all key details about the offer including subject matter, qu
price. (Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth)

A: [A]s offer was neither clear and complete because (a fair wage) Price was vague (m h) and ambiguous. Diffe
will give various meanings to this phrase. Moreover, (worker) Subject matter was not clear and complete, unless th
was (to do various kinds of general work)

C: There are no offer and therefore no acceptance by [B]. Thus, no agreement and no enforceable contract was f
[B] cannot sue [A] for breach of contract.
2- Offers must be communicated to the offeree
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exist between [A] and [B].
R: The agreement is not complete until the offeree communicates their acceptance to the offeror (Powell v Lee)

A: Here, [A] asked [C] to communicate his/her offer to [B] that he would purchase [B]s product. There was (no) ment
was (not) a normal, reliable person (mental illness, intoxicated xn, minor tr em di 18 tui)
C: Therefore, the offer between A and B was (not) successfully formed
3- Offer must can be accepted by the person to whom it is addressed
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exist between [A] and [B].

R: Only a person to whom the offer was addressed (the offeree) can validly accept the offer.
A: Here, [A] was asking to [C]----[A]s statement. This means that [A] provided a valid offer to [C]. As a result, [B
party) cannot accept to [A]s offer.

C: Thus, [B] was not a person [A] made the offer to, there was no acceptance by [B], no agreement thus no co
formed.

4- Offer may be revoked (withdrawn) by the offerer any time before acceptance and the offerers revoc
be communicated effectively to the offeree
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exist between [A] and [B]

R-A: Firstly, even if the offeror has promised to keep the offer open for a particular period, they are entitled (ch
revoke their offer at any time prior to acceptance. This mean [A] could revoke his/her offer any time before [B]s
The only circumstance in which an offeror may not revoke the offer is when there is an Option contract. This exis
offeror promises to keep the offer open and exclusively available to the offeree for a period of time, in exchange for
giving up something of legal value as consideration for the offeror s promise. Here, [B] offeree gave up nothing of le
exchange for [A] offerors promise. Thus, [A]s promise was a bare promise unsupported by consideratio
unenforceable. There is no optional contract and [A] was free to revoke anytime before [B]s acceptance. Secondly, revoc
be communicated. By (sending email) (Dickinson v Dodd). Since, there was no offer anymore from [A], when [B
accept your offer), he/she was actually making a new offer but no acceptance was given by [A].
C: With no acceptance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract.

Terminating the offer [Revoke (Offeror) or Reject (Offeree)]

1- Revocation: offeror can take back (revoke) the offer (Routledge v Grant)
(See 4th Rule of Offer)
2- Rejection: offeree refuses to accept (a counter offer is also a rejection)
(See 1st Rule of Acceptance)
3- Lapse of time
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exist between [A] and [B]

R: An offer may be terminated by the lapse of time, either the time specified in the offer or a reasonable amount of

A: Here, there is no evidence in the fact that [A]s offer specified it would be opened for a certain amount of time. Thu
terminate after a reasonable amount of time depending on the fact. It can be seen that (5 month) is (not) beyond w
considered as a reasonable amount of time to (sell the house). Perhaps, (10 days or 2 weeks) might/might not
reasonable. Thus, [A]s offer terminated before [B] response, which was actually a new offer.

C: With no acceptance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract. Thus, [B] cannot sue [A] for breach of co
4- Death of either party before acceptance
Rule of acceptance
1- The terms of the offer must be accepted without suggesting changes
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]
R: A valid acceptance must be completed and unconditional (Masters v Cameron). If the response attempts to
terms of the offer in anyways, it is rejection and counteroffer but not an acceptance. (Hyde v Wrench)

A: Here, [B]s statement (make it $200) was an counteroffer which terminated [A]s offer (to sell for $250). Thu
not later accept that offer, which was terminated. [B]s statement (OK, I agree to pay $250) was therefore a new o
acceptance
C: With no acceptance, there are no agreement and therefore, no contract. Thus, [B] cannot sue [A] for breach
2- The offeror can require a certain method of acceptance by the offeree

There are 3 example for this case, need to identify the problems depending on the case
(See sample 1+2+3, case v [2] problem thng ri vo dng 1)

Sample 1:
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]

R-A: Firstly, when an offer is made and offerees are invited to accept the terms by performing specified acts, an o
responds to the offer and performs the required acts will be held to have validly accepted the offer. (Carlill v Carb
Ball Co). Here, the method of acceptance specified by [A] (offeror) was being (The first person who brings $25 ca
house in a pink develop, while wearing high heels and miniskirt). However, [B] only partially followed this method b
forgot (The pink envelope). Thus, [B]s acts were not a valid acceptance, but merely a counteroffer. Moreover, of
revoked any time before acceptance and revocation must be communicated (Dickinson v Dodd). [A]s st
communicated to [B], was a valid revocation because no acceptance had occurred prior to it.

C: With no acceptance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract. Thus, [B] cannot sue [A] for breach of co

 Sample 2:
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B], as well
[A] and [C]

R-A: When an offer is made and offerees are invited to accept the terms by performing specified acts, an offeree who resp
offer and performs the required acts will be held to have validly accepted the offer. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
specified that acceptance was performed by the act of (Returning Sth) to [A] ([A] made a unilateral offer an offer i
for the specific act- Dickinson-Dodd). [B] did not follow [A]s method of acceptance, so [B]s act (phone call) was m
offer, not a valid acceptance, at least literally (t nht theo ngha en). [C] presumably knew about the offer and (bro
[A], so [C] has made a valid acceptance by performing the act specified in [A]s offer.
C: There is no agreement (offer and acceptance) between [A] and [B], so not valid contract was formed and [A]
[A] for breach of contract.
However, there is agreement (offer and acceptance) between [A] and [C], so valid contract was formed and [C]
for breach of contract.
Sample 3:
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]

R-A-C: Firstly, acceptance generally must be communicated directly to offeror (Powell v Lee). Here, although [A] com
his/ her acceptance to (The neighbor and the whole city), [A] did not communicated directly to the offeror [B]. Thus,
make a valid acceptance. Moreover, offer may be revoked any time before acceptance and revocation must be com
effectively (Dickinson-Dodd). Here, as there was no acceptance, [B] was entitled to revoke his/her offer and this revo
communicated effectively when [A] (read [B]s email). As there was no agreement (offer and acceptance), no co
formed and [A] cannot sue [B] for breach of contract.
OR
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]

R: An exception to the rule that acceptance must be communicated is an acceptance by post takes effect when th
acceptance is post, not when it is received or read (Henthorn v Fraser). This is true unless the offeror has stat
offeree may not use the post.

A-C: Here, there is no evidence that [B] stated that [A] may not use the post to accept. Thus, if [A] mailed the letter of ac
[B], the acceptance was valid at the moment the letter was posted (assuming it was properly addressed and stamped). A c
formed at the moment and [B]s email was too late to be a valid revocation because offer can be revoked any time before
but not after acceptance. Thus, [B] can sue [A] for breach of contract.
3- Acceptance must be communicated. Silence does not mean acceptance

- Acceptance by conduct: Unilateral offer may be accepted by specific performance (Carlill v Carbolic Smok
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B], as well
[A] and [C]

R: When an offer is made and offerees are invited to accept the terms by performing specified acts, an offeree wh
to the offer and performs the required acts will be held to have validly accepted the offer. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Acceptance by conduct: Unilateral offer may be accepted by specific performance (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ba

A: Here, [A] specified that acceptance was performed by the act of (Returning Sth) to [A] ([A] made a unilatera
offer in exchange for the specific act). [B] did not follow [A]s method of acceptance, so [B]s act (phone call) was m
offer, not a valid acceptance, at least literally (t nht theo ngha en). [C] Presumably knew about the offer and (bro
[A], so [C] has made a valid acceptance by performing the act specified in [A]s offer.
C: There is no agreement (offer and acceptance) between [A] and [B], so not valid contract was formed and [A]
[A] for breach of contract.
However, there is agreement (offer and acceptance) between [A] and [C], so valid contract was formed and [C]
for breach of contract.
-

Acceptance by post (only for post/letter): It is consider communication at the date the letter is sent, not
received/read (Henthorn v Fraser). The acceptance is not valid unless it is communicated in this manner or in

manner that is just as prompt and no less advantageous to the offeror (Tinn v Hoffmann & Co)
Case 1:
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]

R: It is consider communication at the date the letter is sent, not when it is received/read (Henthorn v Fraser)
The acceptance is not valid unless it is communicated in this manner or in alternative manner that is just as prom
less advantageous to the offeror (Tinn v Hoffmann & Co)

A-C: Firstly, acceptance generally must be communicated directly to offeror (Powell v Lee). Here, although [A] commu
her acceptance to (The neighbor and the whole city), [A] did not communicated directly to the offeror [B]. Thus, [A] d
a valid acceptance. Moreover, offer may be revoked any time before acceptance and revocation must be communicated
(Dickinson-Dodd). Here, as there was no acceptance, [B] was entitled to revoke his/her offer and this revocation was com
effectively when [A] (read [B]s email). As there was no agreement (offer and acceptance), no contract was form
cannot sue B for breach of contract.
OR
Case 2: Silence does not equal acceptance
I: The legal issue is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance (agreement) exists between [A] and [B]

R: It is consider communication at the date the letter is sent, not when it is received/read (Henthorn v Fraser)
An offeror can waive the requirement that communication be accept, but cannot insist that a failure to r
acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley)

A: Firstly, [A] (send) [B] (the email) with the content that (if you do not reply me, it is acceptance). Based on the r
does not equal acceptance. Therefore, between [A] and [B] does not exist the valid acceptance. Moreover, offer may be r
time before acceptance and revocation must be communicated effectively (Dickinson-Dodd). Here, as there was no acce
was entitled to revoke his/her offer and this revocation was communicated effectively when [A] (read [B]s email).

C: So, [B] can still enforce the agreement if [A] (refuse to do Sth), but [A] cannot enforce the agreement if [B] (refuse to
-

Acceptance by electronic communication (for email, sms, instant messaging):

If two people are communicating with each other, did one or both of them designate an information syst
purposes of the communication? (Electronic Transaction (Victoria) Act 2000)
+ If Yes, then that person deemed to have received the communication when it enters the information system (eg. Go
inbox), even if the person has not read it yet (s.13 (3) ETA)
+ If No, then the person deemed to have received the communication when they read

2) Intention to be bound
A- Business agreement/ Cng vic m phn
I: The legal issue is whether [A] and [B] intended to be bound in a legal relationship

R: Agreements that are obviously in commercial nature usually are contractual and parties have the intention to
However, they can still prove through circumstance that there was no intention.

A: Here (the phrase agreement to be bound in honor only, pledge of our best intention to work together and n
legal instrument show clearly that although this is a commercial setting, there was not an intent to be legally bound, me
of comfort letter which provides some assurance, but falls short of an enforceable contract) (Commonwealth Bank o
v TLI Management Pty Ltd)
C: [A] and [B] did not intent to be bound in a legal relationship. Thus, no enforceable contract was formed and
sue [B] for breach of contract
B- Social Agreement (Gia nh)
I: The legal issue is whether [A] and [B] intended to be bound in a legal relationship (or just a social agreement)

R: Agreement that are obviously in social nature (friend or family) are not normally intended to be contractual and
do not likely have the intention to be bound. However, they can prove through circumstances, such as economic s

that there was legal intention

A: Here, although [A] and [B] were family (friend), [A] gave up a very important and valuable opportunity (a full exp
scholarship at Harvard). This was a big sacrifice, economically very serious and it was given in exchange for the prom
house, Sth with financial important). (Wakelling v Ripley)

C: The circumstance showed there was likely intent to be bound between [A] and [B]. Thus, enforceable contract w
and [A] can sue [B] for breach of contract.

3) Consideration
A- No consideration
I: The legal issue is whether [A] gave any consideration in exchange for [B]s (promise or property)

R: For an agreement to be binding and legally enforceable, both parties must agree to give up Sth having legal val
goods, services or legal right) or suffer from detriment. If only one party agrees to give up Sth of legal value, then
mere bare promise that is unsupported by consideration not a binding, legally enforceable contract (Currie v M

A: Here, [A] promise (a new car, giving money OR giving up a legal right OR suffering from a detriment), which
consideration because this had a legal value/ caused harm to [A]. However, [B] promised nothing and did nothing in exch
consideration was provided by [B]. Thus, [A] s promise was merely a bare promise unsupported by consideration. (B
Phillott)

C: Consideration is required from both parties, so no enforceable contract was formed and [B] cannot sue [A] fo
contract.

B- Past consideration
I: The legal issue is whether [A] gave merely past consideration in exchange for [B]s (promise or property)

R: Consideration may not be past. To be valid consideration, the thing having legal value must be given at the tim
the promise it is given for exchange is made.

A: Here, [A]s agreement of (Not telling to his mother) was a valid consideration because [A] agreed to refrain from
which he/she had a legal right to do. However, [A]s agreement (the thing having legal value) was given before [B]s pro
good consideration, it would have to be given at the same time or after [B]s promise. Thus, [A] gave merely past cons
exchange for [B]s promise, which was a bare promise unsupported by consideration. (Roscorla v Thomas)
C: Consideration is one of the elements to form contract, so no enforceable contract was formed and [A] cannot
breach of contract.
C- Adequate consideration (good)
I: The legal issue is whether [A] gave valid consideration in exchange for [B]s (promise or property)

R: Consideration does not have to be adequate (good enough, fair, reasonable, etc). To be a valid consideration
given must have some legal value but it can be very low in value.

A: Here (The used piece of tissue paper) had some value but small. Its value need not be comparable to (The
Consideration may be doing Sth you are not already obligated to do, or not doing Sth which you have a legal right t
(Offering the tissue paper), [A] was doing something he/she was not obligated to do incurring a kind of detriment. The
provided valid consideration in exchange for [B] promise. [B]s promise was a binding promise supported by consideratio
( Chappell v Nestle) (Roscorla v Thomas)
C: Thus, enforceable contract was formed and [A] can sue [B] for breach of contract

D- Insufficient consideration
I: The legal issue is whether [A] gave sufficient consideration in exchange for [B]s (promise or property)

R: Consideration must be sufficient. To be sufficient, the consideration must not already be owned under existing le

A: Here, [A] had a pre-existing legal duty to (Teacher a lecture under the contract with RMIT). Thus, he/she did n

anything to (Be a lecture) because that was what he/she was already required to do (Stilk v Myrick). Thus, [A
insufficient consideration in exchange for [B]s promise which was a bare promise unsupported by consideration.
Here, [A] had no legal duty or obligation to (Attend class), so [A] was free to choose whether to (Attend)
promising (Attending class), [A] gave Sth to [B] which [A] did not already own under an existing legal duty
Ponsonby). Thus, [A] provided sufficient consideration in exchange in exchange for [B]s promise.
C: Consideration is required from both parties, so (no) enforceable contract was formed and [A] can/cannot
breach of contract
E- Option contract
I: The legal issue is whether an option K was actually between [A] and [B].

R: To have a valid option contract, the offeree must give up Sth of legal value as consideration for the offerors
keep the offer open and exclusively available to the offeree for a certain period of time. During that period, the offe
revoke their offer otherwise breach of option contract.

A: Here,[A](gave money)to[B]to keep the offer of(selling the bike)for(three days).[A]s consideration has a l
However, [B] (sold the bike someone two days after forming the option contract with [A])
OR
Here, [A] gave up nothing in exchange [B]s promise to keep the offer of(selling the bike) for(three days), so no co
was provided by [A]. Thus, [B]s promise to keep the offer was merely a bare promise unsupported by co
(Goldsbrough Mort & CO Ltd v. Quinn)

C: Consideration is required from both parties, so (no) enforceable contract was formed and [A]can/cannot s
breach of option contract.

Situation a contract cannot be enforced

1 Lack of consent

Common mistake:
I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent

R-A:
- The subject matter of the contract has been destroyed or does not exist at the time the contract is entered into [Cout
Hastie]. Here, in fact that, [A] and [B] has the contract on (1st February). However, on (31st January), [why do
exist the subject matter of the contract] (Sale of cargo hang ha- unknown to the parties, sunk at sea. A contrac
goods which, unknown to the parties, do not exist when the contract is made).
- There are not bilateral mistake if the mistake is only about character, value of quality of the subject matter (Leaf v
International Galleries 1950). (A contract to buy famous painting. However, the painting turns out to be a very goo
reproduction, not an original. Neither party knew it was a reproduction. But they agreed on the actual subject matte
painting and the painting did exist at the time they entered the contract. They just did know that the character a
value were difficult. Therefore, unless there was misrepresentation or frau, there is no bilateral mistake).
- The mistake may refer to the existence of the goods (destruction of good).
For example: (At the time of entering a contract for life insurance both parties believed the person whose life
insured was living. When in fact he was dead. The contract was void for mistake as it was a common mistake as to t
existence of the subject matter [Scott v Coulson].
OR: (A party contracts to buy property he later determines he already owned.)

C: Thus, the contract was void and unenforceable by either party due to common mistake and [A] may not claim d
for breach of contract.

Unilateral mistake:
I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent

R: (1) Only one party is mistaken about a (2) fundamental fact of the contract and (3) the other party is aware of
mistake or should be aware (Taylor v Johnson)

A: Here, just [A] was mistaken about the key fact, the subject matter of the contract (v ) and [B] was aware/should h
about [A]s mistake because [A] was .and [B] knew the potential confusionbut choosing to remain silent.
(Even if Taylor did not actually know about the mistake, the law would say that he should have known. The current marke
the time was around $15000 per acre. Objectively, any person should have known that the offer of $150000 for 10 acres w
good to be true. So the courts would say that Taylor should have known about that mistake)
C: Thus, [A] may void (v hiu) the contract due to unilateral mistake and claim return of (the purchase price)
Note: Case of unilateral mistake may also be treated as actionable misrepresentation.

Mutual mistake
I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent

R: Mutual mistake exist when parties have both made mistakes on key factors of the contract but each party has m
different mistake no meeting of the minds (Raffles v Wichelhaus)

A: Here, [A] and [B] had different ideas of what the subject matter of the contract (becausegive the fact, explain), refe
their intended to contract on different terms from each other. There was no meeting of the minds between them. (D agreed
cotton arriving from Bombay to be delivered on the ship Peerless. There were two ships arriving from Bombay one in O
one in December. [A]s offer was for the December ship. Ds acceptance was for the October ship. The court said no bindi
contract because P and D each intended to contract about different terms. No meeting of the minds and the contract was v
C: Thus, the contract was void and unenforceable by either party due to mutual mistake.

2 Duress (illegitimate force)

I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent (duress)
R: One of the parties has expressly or impliedly threatened the other party with harm
The threat of harm contributed to the threatened partys decision whether or not to enter into the contract

The threat may be:

To the person safety of the other party or to that of their loved (Barton v Amstrong) (Seear v Cohen)
To the safety of the other partys goods or property (Hawker Pacific Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd) or
To the other partys economic or financial wellbeing, known as economic duress ( North Ocean Shipping Co Lt
Huyndai Construction Co Ltd, 1979)
A: Here, [A] has no right to reject the contract with [B] because(the threat may be)

C: As the contract was signed due to duress, the threatened party can void the contract if he want to
Note: Duress makes a contract a voidable contract rather than void. This means contract still effective and enforceable
terminated (chm dt) by other party.
3 Undue Influence (special relationship)
I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent (undue influence)

R: The parties are in a pre-existing relationship such that one party has controlling influence over the other (Allcar
Skinner) => Presume that the contract is under undue influence (Case 1). If the Defendant who want to rebut (ph
presumption must prove (Case 2)
The stronger party takes advantage (1) of that influence such that the weaker party is not exercising their indep
judgement (2), the contract will be voidable on the ground of under influence (Case 2) [Johnson v Buttress (1936) 5
113]
A: Put it yourself

C: Having proved 2 elements, [A] may claim that [B] undue influenced him to enter the contract. Therefore, the co
void
4 Unconscionability
I: The legal issue is whether [A] can rescind the contract, avoid the legal transaction with [B] due to failure of genu
consent

R: A contract will be void due to (1) one party has a special weakness or disadvantage[Commercial Bank of Austra
Amadio 1938], (2) the other party is aware of that special weakness or disadvantage [Bridgewater v Leahy 1998], a
other party takes unfair advantage of that special weakness or disadvantages [Louth v Disprose 1992]

5 Lack of capacity