Contract With Airbus Corporation Limited †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Contract With Airbus Corporation Limited? Answer: Introducation According to the case study the Qantas Airlines Ltd signed a contract with Airbus Corporation Limited for building a new airplane therefore in this matter both of them hat agreed with the legal bindings and one party has make the offer the other party is accept the contract. In the case of smith and hugs the it has been found where the both of the parties has legally blind with offer and acceptance as per the terms of contract (McKendrick Liu, 2015). The case of Smith v Hughes the court has found that the parties have accept the offer according to the terms of the contract. In the case of Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty where the court has found that the parties has legally binding in a contract where they do not have any knowledge about the terms of contract however it make the contract valid. Therefore it can be said that according to the terms of contract an offer and acceptance is one of the important part or terms of the contract where party must make a mutual consideration and sell it legal objects and must have the real intention to from the contract (McKendrick Liu, 2015). Therefore according to the case study the LEstange v Graucob terms of contract has been made where a condition is also made and as per the condition the parties failed to accept the terms of conditions in the contract then it will we reach the contract where the parties will fail to deposit the contract for the innocent Party Can claim the damages due to the breach of the contract (Andrews, 2015). Warranty is another contact each me KN significance as per the terms but it is provided by the aggrieved party who will provide a certain time for the application of the contract and if it is breached then everybody will bound to pay the compensation to the innocent party. Therefore that damages in contract for you to the breach the terms of contract make the damage in the contract law therefore if it is and the identified that the aggrieved party has not able to satisfy the terms of contract and due to breach of the contract the Innocent party has faced any damage therefore the aggrieved p arty will bound to pay the compensation for the damages which occurred by them (McKendrick Liu, 2015). In the case of Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd it has been found that the aggrieved party is found to liable for violet the terms of contract where it has provided the warranty and the condition. Therefore innocent party has suffered damage and they claim for the compensation (Andrews, 2015). Application According to the case study the issue has identified about the legal position of the contract where the Qantas Airlines Ltd has made the contract with Airbus Corporation Limited therefore it is necessary to determine the contractual terms of that agreement which has been made between two airlines company as per the case study the contract has formed with the mutual consideration according 545 terms it is incorporated with the agreement (McKendrick Liu, 2015). Therefore one party has made the offer and another party accept the terms where it is clear both of the airline companies has no the conditions of offer and acceptance which are mentioned in the agreement now the according to the signed contract airbus send to Qantas Airlines Ltd package containing a large number of documents which includes the contract itself and examples of the color scheme which will be used. Therefore there is another part in that contract about the limitation of liability which includes that if the Airbus Corporation Limited has made any breach of the terms as per the Contract then they will be liable to kept at $30,000 to the Qantas Airlines Ltd. As this Toms has been mentioned in the agreement therefore the duty has lies for the here this that the mentioned exclusion clause must be get to the knowledge of Qantas Airlines Ltd (Andrews, 2015). Therefore the close of exclusion is not made under the notice where the Qantas Airlines Ltd will be part of this clause when the contact has been made it is necessary that both of the parties will know about every terms and conditions and queries. Now as the Qantas Airlines Ltd has no knowledge about such notice which was placed to them through a big box so the contract is not satisfied the terms which are legally invalid (McKendrick Liu, 2015). Now as per the contract the engineers of Airbus limited has wrongly installed wrong entertainment system where they required of 36 systems they have installed only 34 systems which has been not made according to the contract. Therefore they already breach the contract due to the dissatisfaction of the terms of contract now the Qantas Airlines Ltd is suffering for the mistake by Airbus and they can required for the compensation (McKendrick Liu, 2015). According to the terms of contract the Airbus has breach the terms of the contract therefore the Qantas Airlines Ltd has right to claim the compensation from Airbus for the breach of the contract (Andrews, 2015). As per the case study Frank who is the owner of the shop has fired Bob who used to drink whole day and join the workplace every day late. Therefore Frank has fired him. However when Bob used a false way to collect money by using the Franks shop bank account and using his appliances from his sir and fail to delivery at the customer Angela who transfer the money and want to convert who has want to take legal actions against him. As Frank has no knowledge about such miss representation before the issue is arise when FSrank is liable to pay the amount back or supply the appliances to the customer (McKendrick, 2014). It is a case of misrepresentation of facts was the parties has been entered in a contract with the legal binding agreement without knowing the true facts and form the contract as per the basis of false statement. Therefore it is a misrepresentation. In the case of Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] it has been found that the plaintiff is made a contract agreement with the defendant as per the basis of false or misrepresentation where it carries the legal value of the contract but the intention of the defendant has misconducts. Therefore the case has been found illegal and fail to bind to the contract (McKendrick, 2014). In the case of Smith v Land House Property Corp (1884) the misrepresentation has been found in the desirable tenant where the defendant has agreed in the contract to buy the hotel but later it was been found that the tenant was bankrupt. Therefore the defendant is failed to complete the contract and the plaintiff has sued the defendant as for the failure of specific performan ce. In the case of Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) the court of appeal has found that the intention of the statement in the contract is established the misrepresentation where the plaintiff was bound to entitled to signed the contract and the defendant make the promise to complete the contract but intention was illegal. The difference between the misrepresentation and puffery make the legal value of the contract where the property defines as a self evident acceleration which was not appropriate to used for the purpose of advertising (McKendrick, 2014). It is important that misrepresentation must applied by a party of the contract where a false statements is necessary to relate on the other party who will be affected. In the Hill v Rose [1990] case the court has found that the innocent party who enters into the contract but later it has been found that the statement is made on the basis of false or misrepresentation towards the party (Butler, et al. 2013). Therefore applying the misrpresentation there must be an agency who will be the principal and bound to perform on behalf of the authority and the authority not always provide the power to the agent where the third party is involved to work according to the agent but there is a relation between the agent and principal in the miss presentation (Butler, et al. 2013). In the case of Watteau v Fenwick [1983] the court has found that the authority is never allowed to provide any relation with the agent and the principal is need to exist and the third party must enter into that contract where they only depend upon the agent who works behalf of the principal (McKendrick, 2014). According to the case study Gemma is employed under Frank where she knows about the price of dishwasher and makes a third party involvement to sale the dishwasher to her niece. She has knowledge that dishwasher could be sale in $350. However, when Gemma want to sell the dishwasher, Frank authorized her to sell that on $300 as per the basis of misrepresentation. Now when Tom is the customer who wants to buy the dishwasher in $350, he has found it has already sold in $300. Therefore Frank is misrepresentation ha occur by Gemma where Frank was informed with wrong information. Here it can be stated that Gemma has made the fraudulent misrepresentation towards Frank where he could gain the more profit by selling the dishwasher. Now Frank can claim the compensation of $50 from Gemma for committing the fraudulent misrepresentation with Frank to sell the dishwasher in $300 instead of $350 (McKendrick, 2014). Now as per the Bobs activity he was also a sales representative in Franks shop where Bob has make negotiating frequently misrepresentation with Frank. While Frank has fired him for became drunk at the time of work. Therefore there is no liability for Frank about the activities of Bob. Bob made a contract with Angela who wants to buy washing machines for her commercial laundries and she made a contract to buying of 10 washing machines for a price of $1,000 for each (Butler, et al. 2013). She transferred the money in the home appliance bank account. Here Angela and Frank both of them do not have any knowledge about the situation where Angela dont know about that Frank has already fired Bob and where Frank has not make any contract with her while selling the washing machine. Therefore in this matter Frank only liable to make the claim from the damages against Bob (McKendrick, 2014). Conclusion Therefore as per the case studies both Gemma and Bob has fraudulently misrepresentation against Frank and Gemma and Bob both has bound to pay the damage compensation towards Frank on the terms of fraudulent misrepresentation of contract. Reference Andrews, N. (2015). Contract law. Cambridge University Press. Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 Butler, D., Christensen, S., Willmott, L., Dixon, B. (2013). Contract Law Case Book. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 527 Hill v Rose [1990] VR 129 LEstange v Graucob (1923) 2KB 394 McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). McKendrick, E., Liu, Q. (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Smith v Hughes Court of Queen's Bench [1871] LR 6 QB 597 Smith v Land House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8 Watteau v Fenwick [1983] 1 QB 346