I m going to send you guys example eassy as well.
Please use this book called introduction to business law in australia complied by alexandra otevel
also in this case study i think misrepresentation law will going to apply which after that i think going to apply fraudulent misrepresentation . thanks
Assignment – Introduction to Business Law Sem 2/2016.
Ever since he was a little kid, Bob Wheelie has been in love with pushbikes. He started by using it to ride around his backyard for fun, then he rode it to school, and everywhere else he needed to go. As Bob grew older, he decided he preferred the off road type of bike. He became involved in mountain biking, his favourite track around Canberra was the Mount Stromlo track.
By the time Bob was 15 he had made a name for himself in the riding community. At 17, he participated in an extreme ride in Victoria’s High Country. Bob became so good that he was selected to compete at the World Cup in Lenzerheide, Switzerland.
When Bob finished his Sports Management degree at the University of Canberra, he worked for a variety of sporting organisations, and in his spare time, he continued to ride his beloved bike.
Following a disagreement with his boss, Bob decided that he’d like to work for himself and started looking around. Not long after his 30th birthday, he saw an add that caught his eye. Mr Spoke, the owner of a bicycle store was retiring and needed to sell his store.
Bob saw this as a perfect opportunity. It would allow him to work for himself doing just what he loved. Not knowing much about running a business, Bob made enquiries with Mr Spoke regarding the sale. Mr Spoke made representations regarding the past and future profitability of the store.
Bob purchased the bicycle store on the basis of the historical figures presented by Mr Spoke in the form of historical accounts. These accounts were not an accurate representation, but were inflated by 55%. The figures were designed to induce Bob Wheelie to purchase the store, so that Mr Spoke could retire and travel overseas.
Bob was very excited about his new venture. He planned to not only sell bikes, but provide bike service, advice and some basic lessons. When Bob started to set up his new shop, he came across some old register tapes, cash receipts and tax documents. On closer inspection, he discovered that they were not as old as they seemed at first, going back the last three years.
Not knowing how to read these documents properly, Bob enlisted the help of a fellow enthusiast who studied accounting at Uni. Between them they discovered that the figures Mr Spoke gave Bob were false. The figures seemed to indicate that the shop was not in a good financial position, and that Bob’s new venture might cost him considerably more than he anticipated in order to make it work.
Understandably, Bob is very upset and comes to you for advice which you must base on common law only. Because Bob is considering taking Mr Spoke to court, your answer must be supported by relevant case law.
Your assignment must be written in the third person, in the form of a legal essay. The maximum length of your essay is 1500 words, +/- 5%. Referencing must be in accordance with the AGLC3, which can be found on the library website.
Penalties apply for plagiarism, and you are encouraged to become familiar with University policies on plagiarism before submitting any assessment: http://www.canberra.edu.au/faculties/busgovlaw/attachments/pdf/Plagiarism.pdf
The assignment is an individual piece of assessment, NOT group work.
I encourage you to look at the examples of good essays on Moodle. Penalties for late submissions will apply – please see the Unit outline. Extension of time must be sought from the Unit Convenor before the submission due date. NO extensions will be granted after the due date.
And this is example eassy
Max’s friend Charlie wishes to purchase a restaurant. One evening he finds a Greek restaurant, Bruno’s, for sale, located on King’s Avenue, around the corner from Max’s restaurant, The Hercules. The restaurant is full of customers. A few days later, Charlie speaks to Max about his plans. Charlie explains that he is very keen to buy the business but that he has never owned a restaurant or even worked in the industry before, and he would appreciate Max’s advice and guidance. Max assures Charlie that Bruno’s appears to be a very successful restaurant and that he is ‘almost guaranteed’ to make a profit in the first 12 months. Charlie immediately decided to purchase the restaurant with his brother Harley. One year later they are on the verge of bankruptcy; the restaurant was not as popular or as profitable as they expected, and turnover has declined even further since they took over the business.
Are Charlie and/or Harley able to take any action against Max?
This essay will discuss the requisite elements for establishing negligent misstatement and the issue of liability to third parties. This area of business law is supported by a number of cases, which have established and clarified the factors required to mount an argument for damages based on negligent misstatement. Specifically, the essay will argue, with reference to relevant case law, that, in the scenario provided, there is sufficient evidence to establish that: Max held special expertise in the area in which he provided advice; the advice was provided in a serious context; and that Max should have realised that Charlie would rely on the advice. These findings lead to the conclusion that Charlie could pursue damages against Max, based on the negligent misstatement. The essay will also discuss whether Harley, Charlie’s brother and business partner, is able to take action against Max and will find that he is not able to.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd  established, by way of obiter, that a negligent misstatement that caused pure economic loss could give rise to an action for negligent misrepresentation, outside of a contractual relationship. In the scenario provided, one party (Charlie) acted upon advice provided by another (Max), by entering into a financial transaction, which resulted in economic loss. While Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd  laid the essential groundwork for torts in the area of negligence, further cases provided additional clarification of the elements required to establish an argument for awarding damages based on negligent misstatement.
The first element this essay will examine is the finding in Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt  that the person who provided the advice had, or claimed to have, some special skill or knowledge. This finding was further extended in L. Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council, where it was held that the advice or information need not be provided by a professional advisor. In the scenario provided, at the time of providing the advice, Max was the owner of a restaurant, called ‘The Hercules’. There is no information provided about the profitability of ‘The Hercules’, or whether Max currently owned, or had owned, any other restaurants. Given the ethnicity of the name ‘The Hercules’, it may be inferred that this is also a Greek restaurant, like the restaurant ‘Bruno’s’, which Charlie was seeking advice about, which would strengthen the argument that Max has specialist knowledge in the subject matter. Max’s restaurant is in close proximity to Bruno’s. It may be argued that Max, due to his position as the owner of a restaurant within a close proximity, could be privy to special information regarding the profitability of similar businesses, which was not ordinarily available.
The second element is that the advice was provided in a serious business or professional context, although the existence of a contract is not required. Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) found that when a person provides information or advice in serious circumstances they come under a duty to exercise reasonable care when providing the information or advice. It is stated that Max and Charlie are friends, but no further information is provided as to the context in which the advice was provided. However, information as to whether there was a social relationship may not be essential to mounting a case that there was a serious context. In Chaudhry v Prabhakar , a pre-existing social relationship was held not to impede the existence of a business or serious context for provision of advice. Charlie made Max aware that he was ‘very keen’ to buy the business. This should have indicated to Max that Charlie was requesting the advice in relation to a serious financial commitment. In addition, the purchase of a restaurant involves a substantial amount of money, further supporting the argument that the advice was provided in a serious context.
In Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt , the court found that it is required that the person claiming action for negligent misstatement acts in reliance of the information or advice. This is the third element, that is, that it was reasonably foreseeable that the person to whom the advice or information was provided would rely on that advice or information. As already mentioned, Charlie had explained to Max that he was ‘very keen’ to buy the business. It is known that Charlie is also aware, from his own reconnaissance, that the restaurant was full of customers on the evening he passed by. However, it is not stated whether Charlie provides this information to Max when requesting the advice. It is known to Max that Charlie has never owned a restaurant or worked in the industry before. It may be reasonable, therefore, to assume that Charlie, with no or little relevant personal knowledge, would rely on the information provided. In the case of L. Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council, the information provided was not widely available from other sources and was unable to be externally verified. In this case, Charlie was seeking ‘insider’ information as to the future profitability of the restaurant. While he may have been able to obtain information as to the current profitability from the previous owners when negotiating the sale, it is unlikely that they would be able to speculate as to future profitability, without making themselves liable for misrepresentation. Further supporting this argument, the judgement in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) found that duty of care extends to advice provided about the future. It should be noted that, in contrast to Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd , Max made no attempt to limit his liability when making the statement.
There is the further question of whether Harley, Charlie’s brother and partner in the business, is able to make a claim against Max. There is no indication that Charlie advised Max that he intended to enter a partnership with Harley and that he would share the advice with him. In Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001), landowners accessed a letter the Water Board had written to a third party and subsequently provided it to their bank, who acted in reliance of the advice in the letter. The Water Board was not aware of that the landowners may have intended to use the information provided in the letter. Based on the facts provided, there does not appear to be any way for Max to have been aware that the information would be provided to Harley and thus be held liable by Harley for the negligent misstatement.
This essay has established, with reference to relevant case law, the factors necessary to argue a case for negligent misstatement, and has applied them to the legal facts as provided in the scenario. It can be seen that Max held expertise in the area in which he provided advice, the advice was provided in a serious context and it was reasonably foreseeable that Charlie would act in reliance of the advice. In light of this argument, Charlie could pursue damages against Max. However, Charlie’s brother, Harley is unlikely to be able to take action against Max, as Max would not have been aware that the information was likely to be shared with Harley and thus relied upon by him.
Articles and Books
Blay, Sam, Andrew Gibson and Bernadette Richards, Torts Law in principle (Lawbook Co, 2005)
Ciro, Tony and Vivien Goldwasser, Cases, Material & Commentary on Law and Business (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Gamble, Roger, Jean Du Plessis and Luke Neal, Principles of Business Law (Thomson Lawbook Co, 2008)
Gibson, Andy and Douglas Fraser, Business Law (Pearson, 2012)
Ipp, David, ‘Themes in the law of torts’ (2007) Australian Law Journal 81
Lambiris, Michael, First Principles of Business Law Source Materials (CCH Australia, 2008)
Law, Jonathan and Elizabeth Martin, A Dictionary of Law (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Trindade,Francis, Peter Cane and Mark Lunney, The Law of Torts in Australia (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Walmsley, Stephen, Alister Abadee and Ben Zipser, Professional Liability in Australia (Lawbook Co, 2007)
Chaudhry v Prabhakar  1 WLR 29
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd  AC 465
L. Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225
Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 at 571
Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1