Identify all of the legal issues about Ms. Jones
About negotiations that took place between Ms. Jones and Fashion Afloat Ltd (FAL) for the lease of commercial premises which later never took place despite Ms. Jones having incurred expenses in terms of refurbishment, Ms. Jones holds some legal issues against FAL that she can use to seek redress from a court of law.
To begin with, from the onset of the relationship between these two parties, Ms. Jones’s legal issues were based on the formation of the contract to which both parties had initially committed themselves. For that matter, Ms. Jones’s legal issues concern the basic requirement of a contract which entails an agreement. The agreement involves consensus between the parties concerned which was initially acknowledged by both parties. About this, FAL was contravening the law by terminating the contract before its formalization since there had been agreement in the initial stages.
Nonetheless, some other legal issues arise on the part of Ms. Jones. For instance, the contract relationship with FAL had some incompleteness which becomes difficult to be fully addressed in a court of law. According to Gibson and Fraser (2009), as a matter of a general rule, contractual parties are required to address the terms of the contract for it to be fully enforceable in a court of law. For instance, the lease cost which was crucial in the agreement was not covered. For that reason, it is legally difficult for Ms. Jones to challenge FAL given the fact that there were some elements of incompleteness in their agreement.
Advise Ms. Jones on her legal rights referring to relevant case law and or legislation
Concerning the definition of a contract which is given as an agreement that concerns promises that are made between two parties or more to create legal obligations and rights upon parties to that agreement which shall be enforceable in a court of law, Ms. Jones has every right to seek court’s redress on the matter. Nonetheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that the contract was never formalized between Ms. Jones and FAL. However, according to Gibson and Fraser (2009), estoppel provides ways in which a promise can be binding legally even if there is no consideration. Therefore, Ms. Jones can effectively use the promise that was given by FAL for the said lease to seek legal redress in a court of law. Moreover, it should also be noted that Ms. Jones can invoke the application of estoppels which can also govern contract law although it is just a general law that can also apply in other areas of law.
For that matter, estoppel holds that one party should not promise something and then thereafter change to the opposite. This piece of law alone is enough to bind FAL to compensate Ms. Jones accordingly following a change of mind in their promise although having not entered into a full contract for the lease of the said property. For that matter, FAL is liable to be accused of having contravened estoppel by the convention which is the subcategory of estoppels (Gibson & Fraser, 2009). Therefore, FAL will be liable for having denied the state of facts as earlier agreed in the promise.
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Australian Contract Law which prohibits a party from behaving deceptively or misleadingly (Gibson & Fraser, 2009). Therefore, Ms. Jones can successfully invoke the application of this Act to seek redress from a law court since the other party (FAL) had acted deceptively and misleadingly that contravenes this Act.
Nonetheless, Gibson & Fraser (2009) chapter five continues to cover mistakes as part of contract misdemeanor. The Act provides that mistake is a complex action in contract law and for that reason; a party can not escape the rule of law for having made a mistake in a contract. The Act, therefore, affirms that as a rule, having been mistaken on issues that relate to a contract will not give a party a right to evade contract obligations. For that matter, Ms. Jones has some legal basis against JAL since JAL can not justify the actions of suspension of the lease agreement based on having made a mistake in the first instance when a promise was made to Ms. Jones.
Conclusion
To sum up, it is important for parties entering into a contractual relationship to iron out any anomalies and spell out all terms of the agreement before engaging in business that relates to the agreement. Moreover, it is important that any assumptions made by any of the parties in the contract need to be communicated to the other party to avoid any level of misunderstanding.
References
Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. (2009) Business Law. 4th ed. England: Monash University Press.