CONTRACT LAW CASE STUDY questions

The court will allow claims for restitution in the following instance:

1. To recover monies paid or property under an ineffective contract [eg. , one made void under statute or mistake ] or a contract that is now unenforceable.2. To provide relief against forfeiture - for example , a party risks losing a deposit:

3. Where there are claims for quantum meruit to pay for appropriate work done ; and4. To allow for recovery of monies paid under a mistake of fact or law .

The case of david securities pty ltd v commonwealth Bank of Australia is an example of restitution.

Key case :David securities pty v commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992)175 CLR 353

Facts :1. A company paid an amounts of its loan to the commonwealth bank under a mistaken view that this was required under tax law.2. The company attempted to recover the money after realizing its mistake, but the bank argued that restitution was not possible for a mistake in law.Issue:Weather restitution was possibleHeld :The high court decided that the bank had profited by unjust enrichment. It had accepted the payment and it would be inequitable to allow the bank to retain the money ( and the company to suffer a loss) where it had made a technical mistake as to law.

CORPORATION CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

(Duty of partners to render accounts) As a part of their fiduciary duty of disclosure, partners must render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the partnership to any partner or their ligal representative.The important of this rule can be seen in the case of Law v law .

Key case :LAW V LAW 1905 Ch 140

Facts :1.Two brothers, william law and james law, were partners. James was the most active partner. He offered to buy out william's interest in the partnership. William agreed . They agreed on a price of £ 10,000. This sale dissolved the partnership. Later, william discovered that james had not disclosed all the partnership's assets.

2. The effect of this non-disclosure was that William's interest in the partnership had been undervalued.

3. William sued james.

Issue:Whether james, as the more active partner, had a duty to disclose the full value of the partnership's assets to william.

Held:1. The court held james liable on the basis that he had a duty to disclose the full value on the assets to William.2. The matter was settled out of court by james paying william an additional £ 3550.

Note: Summarise you answer for part A and part B of the group report .