BUSINESS regulation ASSIGNMENT

Business Law Assignment

Business Law Assignment

1-a Referrring to the scenario Queensland Industrial Explosives Ltd. Will have to cease the supply due to the heavy losses faced by Ravenswood Coalfields Ltd (“Ravenswood”) and Collinsville Minerals (“Collinsville”) In this context, the dangers were all too clear, but they were nonetheless taken. The annoyance should be substantial. In order to avoid the contract the frustration must be so severe that it's not fair to say that risk was assumed. Non-occurrence of the happening should have been a rudimentary assumption. The foresee ability is only a factor in that determination. Just b/c the happening was likely doesn't mean it was foreseeable, or a rudimentary assumption. The performance will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the performance. So, although the contract has been fulfilled only to the extent of supply of the goods the satisfaction aspect does not meet the customer's requirement committed as per contract. The doctrine of frustration concerns only in a restricted range of attenuating factors - generally where the happening renders performance of the contract certain thing basically distinct from that foreseen by the parties. The courts are expected to be unsympathetic if the event could have been foreseen and thus supplied for by the parties in their contract.

Statutory modification means that in most cases the harshness that might result from that common law rule is avoided (eg, Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) Part 2C) the most common remedy is avoidance of the contract (sometimes called "rescission"). Here, the court delicacies the agreement as if it has not ever been made, and endeavours to come back each party to the place he was in just before the agreement was signed. (Generally, restitution will be ordered — each party will return the benefits he has received from the other.)Alternatively, the court may award reliance damages, especially where restitution/ avoidance would not work because one party has suffered loses but the other has not received benefits.

B - Referring to the scenario Casablanca has not deliberately ceased the production and supply to QIE so no condition applies on Casablanca in case of remote operations by Sahwari democratic Front militia. Where annoyance is established the agreement is terminated automatically (in future); there is no choice to release or to perform and, at common regulation, the decrease producing from the termination lies where it falls (although there are limited exclusions to that rule).

c- Referring to the scenario Pushkar's goods transportation of ANFO is all that QIE requires. In simple terms the supply of goods is of consequence and nothing more if not checked by the relevant authority. Having delivered the goods Pushkar is not liable to havew a licence for the delivery or not as it was the work of the duty officer at QIE to check all these details. One can be sure that the Law Lords who decided Hedley Byrne did not foresee ...