JUST3003 Building Law Assignment

Question 1

Despite the fact that the chatbot's replies takes into account a few broad rules of the law concerning contracts, it fails to correctly apply those rules to the particular circumstances surrounding John & Angela Porter. It should've considered if the lack of doorways in the addition amounts to a violation of contract & if any implied clauses might be formed in light of the circumstances & the legal concepts covered in the lecture materials in order to deliver an correct response (Association, 2016).

Lack of attention to one particular incident is Paul Stratford failed to put doors in the extension, saying that doorways weren't included in the quotation, which is the major problem in John & Angela's case. The reply from the AI tool fails to apply these rules to the particulars of the situation in question. It fails to look at if the lack of gates might be regarded as a violation of contract or if a term might be inferred in this circumstance.

There is insufficient Legal Investigation by AI tool. Although the chatbot's reply states that John & Angela won't be capable to prove that the term is implied above reasonable uncertainty, it does not conduct an investigation into law or employ the aforesaid standards to this particular situation (Australia, 2022). It fails to look at if the lack of gates might be regarded as a violation of contract or if a term might be inferred in this circumstance.

Lacking detail & a case-specific assessment, the chatbot's answer to the query about Paul Stratford's rejection to put in gates in addition to John & Angela Porter's home was vague. The fundamental concepts of implied conditions in deals, such as fairness, the requirement for business effectiveness, & understanding, are mentioned in the writing accurately, but they are not applied to the particular situation John & Angela are in. An important problem that could amount to a violation of contract is the finished extension without gates.

It is important to think about if the language & context of the contract properly implied the provision of doors, in addition to if any earlier conversations or industry standards would provide credence to John & Angela's claim. The AI tool need to have offered an in-depth thorough analysis & supported its judgment with references to pertinent readings & case law. Given the typical industrial norm & the fair expectations of participants in a contract for construction, Angela & John may claim that the lack of gates in this situation was a violation of the implicit conditions of the contract. Consequently, even though the AI tool reply includes some pertinent guidelines, it misses the detail & legal assessment needed to adequately deal with John & Angela's issue.

Question 2

Considering the information contained in the situation & the breadth of understanding acquired from the lessons & the lectures in Week 1 to week 4 in Building Law, the AI tool’s response to this scenario is not correct. In this situation, 2 brothers named Steve & Allan are involved in a building project. In order to buy the land that would serve as collateral for a loan to pay for the building expenses, Steve took out loans from his financial institution. But because of adverse variables like Covid & rising rates of interest, the development failed to turn a profit, leaving Steve with a bank loan which wasn't paid off by construction incomes.

We must take into account the legal concepts that are covered in the curriculum in order to determine if Steve will be able to recoup 50% of the cash he took from the banking institution. We should take a closer look at the laws pertaining to contracts, property law, & any communications or arrangements between Steve & Allan over the undertaking. The AI tool's statement makes reference to the 2010 ruling in LICHAA v. LICHAA NSWSC & pulls comparisons between that case & the scenario's predicament. Yet, in light of the material covered in the lectures & readings from Weeks 1-4, the suggested answer fails to adequately analyse the rules of law pertinent to the topic at hand.

In the course's discussion of the concepts of partnerships & joint ventures, participants normally split earnings & losses according to their mutually agreed-upon profit-sharing percentage. The Equal profit-sharing arrangement in the situation suggests a partnership-like arrangement (Witt & Hall, 2022). Thus, the two brothers should split the losses evenly, involving Steve's outstanding financial debt. Steve's capacity to recoup fifty percent of the sum of cash he took from Allan is constrained in the absence of persuasive proof of an alternate agreement. The Chatbot's answer ignores this crucial concept, demonstrating the importance of a deeper knowledge of the law governing partnerships in circumstances involving building regulations.

We must take into account the concepts of partnership & joint venture regulations that are discussed in the class content in order to give correct guidance to Steve. It includes looking into any written or oral agreements between 2 brothers & establishing how damages are distributed in line with their agreed-upon profit-sharing strategy. Without properly taking account of those criteria, the AI tool's answer fails in offering an adequate assessment of the scenario. Mastering partnership standards & any particular arrangements between the parties is necessary for the correct response (University, 2019). Thus, it is impossible to say for certainty if Steve can get back the sum of cash Allan owes Steve from the financial institution with no knowledge about their partnership agreement.

Question 3

The AI tool's answer is unclear. It is correct, however not entirely correct to say from the decision of Masters v. Cameron because "For a party to be committed it must be obvious that the party in question wanted to be bound instantly." The Chatbot pointed to the important law of contracts decision of Masters v. Cameron 1954 CLR 353, nevertheless the specific circumstances of the present instance do not immediately relate to that one.

It constitutes the entire offer and acceptance test: a. An offer is required. b. The person who is offered that is offeree must get information of the offer. c. The offer needs to be readily accepted. d. The offeree has to consent to it. e. The offeror has to be informed of the acceptance (Chen-Wishart, 2010).

In the case of George Jackson, S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd proposed to construct the apartments for $2,692,000. The idea had been made apparent to George. It's likely that George accepted the proposal by stating, "I'm glad to go forward." George did choose to go along with the deal, however S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd wasn't made aware of this until once the offer was revoked. Consequently, there is no binding contract between George & S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd. 1 of a contract's fundamental elements is the intent of establishing a legal relationship. For an arrangement to be enforced, the two sides must have planned on being obligated by its conditions. This goal is frequently evaluated objectively using the reasonable person criterion. Consideration is an additional essential element of a legal agreement. The phrase "consideration" refers to the exchange of money, goods, or services in exchange for something of value. In the present situation, S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd provided a quotation for the construction of the six units, & George confirmed his willingness to accept that price. The sharing of advantages & guarantees shows that both parties expected their contract to be acceptable in the eyes of law.

The course makes it clear that George & S.H.A.C.N. Pty Ltd. having a deal set up which is legal. Two parties agreed to provide each other with assurances & consideration as payment for being held accountable by law. The corporate representative's subsequent acknowledgment that the parties were reluctant to move ahead does not render a contract unenforceable. But it may lead to a potential lawsuit for a breach of contract. For a precise evaluation of the validity & enforceability of a contract, it is essential to consider each relevant data & legal principles from the materials (Clarke, 2021).

Therefore, the AI's answer to the given scenario is inaccurate. There is no enforceable contract between George & S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd since George agreement to accept the deal was not made clear to S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd until the offer was retracted.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back! Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects.

Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank