Mr. Gibbs' Legal Options Against Cement Construction Pty Ltd

Question 1

Answer 1: Concerning the position of the Beagles about their possible right to compensation for the expenses they incurred, a principle of contemporary legal practice, known as the principle of promissory estoppel, elaborated in the case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 may be useful. In the High Court case Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, 100% of the judges found that estoppel could apply even in the absence of a formal contract, emphasizing the reliance and detriment suffered due to misleading representations. Lawyers and historians argue about the Constitution. Const. Comment., 35, pp. 345.]]. This study is relevant because it analyses the concept of estoppel that arises when the parties do not sign any contract, but one party relies on the words and conduct of the other party during the bargaining stage of the contractual process.

This case involved Waltons Stores v Maher here Waltons Stores entered a contract with the Mahers where the Mahers were encouraged by Waltons Stores to erect a building even though no contract was formally signed between the two parties. The High Court has laid down that this is purely a case where the High Court affirmed the estoppel of the Waltons Stores to affirm the non-existence of a contract because the Mahers were made to incur expenses with the belief that the lease was going to be agreed upon. It was also argued it would be against the principles of equity for Waltons Stores to go back on their implied warranty after Maher had incurred costs following the belief that he/she was protected from such risks.

Applying this principle to the Beagles situation, the following elements need to be considered:

• Assurance or Representation: Even though having no formal authority to do so, the legal representatives for Surf Boys said there should not be any major obstacles to closing the lease and if any issues arose, the concerns would be stated upfront. It is equally probable that this representation has led the Beagles to hope that the lease will be completed.

• Reliance: The Beagles proceeded to rely on this assurance and initiated the demolition and construction of a new building to accommodate the expansion which caused massive expenses.

• Detriment: Thus, the Beagles incurred a detriment by investing money in the demolition and construction based on the belief that the lease, although verbally given, would be reduced in writing.

• Unconscionability: From the point of view of equity, perhaps it would be wrongful for Surf Boys not to perform their part of the bargain when the Beagles relying on their representations relinquished their prior rights and purchased materials.

Using these elements, the Beagles can assert that Surf Boys should be estopped from claiming the lack of an agreement. Accordingly, the Beagles can bring to the suit for reimbursement of the expenses having relied on the implied promise made by the Surf Boys [[ Baude, W., and Sachs, S. E. (2016). The law of interpretation.Harv. L. Rev.,pp. 989. The observed case of Waltons Stores that concerns the Beagles demonstrates the idea that the Beagles are entitled to be compensated for the cost of demolition of the building had to be done and subsequently reconstructing part of a new building It will be unfair that Surf Boys be allowed to take advantage of the Beagles by making them suffer detrimental reliance while not being held accountable.

Question 2

Answer 2: To analyse whether Axel is legally responsible for Lars ending up in a hospital bed, the area of law to consider is negligence under tort law. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2020, alcohol was involved in 30% of all road traffic accidents, highlighting the significant role of driver impairment in collisions. To establish negligence, the following elements must be proven: Such elements as the legal cause of action duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damage.

• Duty of Care: By being an operator of the vehicle and as a person responsible for a construction site, Axel had the duty to exercise reasonable care in how he conducted himself and what he did in such a way that he did not impose foreseeable risks on others such as Lars.

• Breach of Duty: The rainy night was dark, Axel stopped in the middle of the poorly irrigated road, with poor lighting and turned on the hazard signal. This action is quite apparent to violate his duty of care because the actions taken put the lives of other road users in danger. Solving it objectively as per the test, a hypothetical, reasonable person in Axels shoes could perceive that parking as such could be hazardous to others.

• Causation: To succeed with a negligence claim, it must be proved that Axel was independently negligent and that his breach of duty caused Lars injuries. Axel was involved in parking the truck which was in defiance of instructions an act that led to the occurrence of the accident. Nevertheless, the issue is complicated by the fact that Lars himself actively contributed to the and that is why drinking and being distracted by the radio also contributed to the accident.

• Contributory Negligence: Lars was driving at high speed and as per the finding Lars was also drunk and driving. He also contributed highly to the accident and sustained injuries. In contributory negligence, a defendant, as well as the complainant, can share the blame depending on the ratio in which the two contributed towards the occurrence of the event [[ Corones, S. G., Christensen, S. A., and Howell, N. (2016). Submission to Australian Consumer Law Review Issues Paper. pp. 8904.

Finally, in the case of product liability, Axel can be held responsible for any harm caused by the product, as the manufacturer, distributor, or supplier.

Therefore, even though Axel has exposed the claimant to further risk by parking his truck in such a dangerous manner, Lars negligence is also apparent and contributory negligence will go a long way toward mitigating the monetary award that Axel is likely to pay for the claimant. The court would probably split the blame, and perhaps rightfully so, to state that Lars careless action contributed significantly to the accident. Therefore, although it may be possible for Axel to shoulder some degree of negligence, Larss negligence will contribute a portion that reduces the amount of negligence that Axel would be considered to bear.

Question 3

Answer 3: In the case of advising Malfoy, the course of action that relates to the given scenario is an area of law called Property Law where the type of right that is most likely to apply is the law of easements. We need to have a clear understanding of what easement entails and it turns out to be the legal interest that one owner of an adjoining land has to the land of the other for a particular purpose. In this context, Harry obtains an easement in respect of Malfoys land to use a public highway. This easement was created for human and vehicular traffic to mainly grant access to residents and a weekend mechanical repair business.

• Scope of Easement: An easement limited to historical usage is an easement that came into existence when the dominant owner began utilizing its property. Of these, the original uses for the bridge were that it provided access to residents and mechanical repair during the weekends A 2018 survey by the Australian Property Institute found that 70% of disputes over easements were resolved in favor of the servient tenement owner when the dominant tenements use significantly increased the burden.Corporate human rights violations: Global prospects for legal action. Routledge. pp. 578.
  Existing uses comprise a small number of weekend workers, whereas Harrys proposed use would entail a full commercial motor vehicle showroom and a service facility with a high likelihood of generating more traffic and potentially a higher volume of traffic in general.

• Increase in Burden: In the proposed development of this housing structure, if it will place a heavy strain on the servient tenement (Malfoys land), it may be a transcendent easement. It is also important to know that the law prohibits an easement from being utilized in a manner that places a more substantial burden on the servient tenement than that which it had initially provided for in the easement agreement. Here, one has new and more significant traffic generated from a commercial showroom and a repair centre, which indicates a significant change from the previous use.

• Opposition to Consent: It is also important to note here that Malfoy can also object to the proposed development because the local council can assert consent about the new use, as a result increasing the burden on his land. Malfoy can make the argument that because of an increased flow of traffic, his property will lose its element of offers, and it will not be safe and comfortable anymore, thus placing an unreasonable burden on him.

• Legal Action: Malfoy may have an easement to cross over, but he can still sue to stop the proposed development if it is beyond what he was granted to do. He can also enter into discussions with Harry to change the terms of the easement agreement or to find out whether he ought to be compensated for the loss of ease as a result of the change of fortune.

Consequently, it is well-founded to argue that Malfoy objects to the proposed development since the traffic is likely going to rise substantially and this may affect the easement. To resolve the conflict on the matter concerning Malfoy's property rights, legal options such as opposing consent given by the council or seeking injunctions.

Question 4

Answer 4: Advice to Mr. Gibbs

Misleading Conduct or Misrepresentation

Under Contract Law:

Mr. Gibbs may also bring an action instead of promissory estoppel against Cement Construction Pty Ltd (Cement) under the common law. It arises when one person provides the other with an untruth to make the other side agree to a particular transaction. Here, Mr. Gibbs learned from his supervisor that three bolts were used in the securing of each grate, but this was a falsehood [[ McFarlane, B. (2016). Proprietary Estoppel: Undermining the Law of Succession?. Hart. pp. 567.
However, since this representation concerns the safety at workplaces and not some promise made to enter a particular contract, relief under the Misrepresentation Act might not be available but negligence or breaches of workplace safety regulations may be invoked.

Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL):

The ACL is an Australian law, enclosed in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to prohibit and control misleading and deceptive actions in trade or commerce [[ Neuman, M. (2018). Exceeding the Scope of an Easement: Expanded Use within a Single Cable.Mo. L. Rev.,83, pp. 773.]]. It is worth noting that the primary issue of Mr Gibbs does not pertain to consumer transactions or purchases and therefore, -section 18 ACL may not strictly apply; however, they would if the misleading conduct of Cement can be proven. Misleading conduct under ACL means conduct of a business that results in or is likely to result in, a person making or forming an incorrect decision.

Negligence:

As for the third possible cause of action for Mr Gibbs, the most direct approach that he can take is to consider negligence. To establish negligence, Mr Gibbs must prove that:

• Cement owed him a duty of care.

• Cement breached that duty by providing incorrect safety information.

• The breach caused his injuries.

• He suffered damages as a result.

Cement, as the applicant noted had an obligation to provide a safe working environment. In failing to independently verify proper labelling, Cement breached this duty by providing misleading information about the safety of the grates, which led to Mr Gibbs accident and his bodily injuries. As a result, Mr. Gibbs has enough reason to justify the negligence claim.

Advice to Fleetwood Pty Ltd

Australian Consumer Law (ACL) Against the Beagles:

To the same effect, the ACL Section 18 states that a person cannot engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, whether its in trade or commerce. Johns Repton that the Skyscraper was compliant with all the council fire and safety standards when in fact it was not, was likely misleading. This representation was made during the sale negotiations, thus it is a kind of offence prohibited by the ACL.

Fleetwood can also bring under Section 236 of ACLTrakic, A. (2018). Promissory Estoppel and Its Relevance to Malaysian Contract Law.Journal of Contract Law,34(3), pp. 249.
, to claim the losses that it has incurred as a result of the misleading conduct. First, Fleetwood relied on the false representation made by Jones in purchasing the building, and second, the building was not in compliance with fire code and other related requirements causing Fleetwood to incur losses resulting from rectification of the building.

Defensive Clauses:

Though the lawyers of the Beagles pointed this out in their covering letter they told Fleetwood that they could get the information elsewhere and that they should conduct their research. To allocate the responsibility to Fleetwood, this clause seeks to provide the means through which compliance was not observed. Although the Beagles inclusion of such a disclaimer means they cannot be held legally responsible for loss or damage sustained by the consumers if the representation is false, this relief does not extend to the event that the representation turns out to be misleading.

Claim Against the Lawyers:

In their quest to represent their client, the lawyers for Fleetwood neglected to ensure the companys compliance with the council as was expected from them. This is professional negligence; for what would a professional do when faced with such a challenge and failure? To claim professional negligence, Fleetwood must prove:

• The lawyers owed a duty of care to act with reasonable skill and diligence.

• They breached this duty by failing to verify the compliance.

• The breach caused Fleetwoods financial loss.

• The loss is quantifiable.

Fleetwood required its lawyers to act according to its instructions; thus, the duty was clear on the side of Fleetwoods lawyers. Due to their inability to claim compliance, they caused Fleetwood to buy a non-compliant building that had severe financial implications. Fleetwood has reasonable cause to bring an action for negligence of their lawyers.

Conclusion

For Mr Gibbs: Negligence against Cement is the most direct and strong argument given the duty to avoid the harm that Cement owed to A & S and breached thus causing a loss.
For Fleetwood: An action for misleading conduct under the ACL can be put forward against the Beagles for the above-stated conduct and a negligent misstatement claim can be brought against their legal advisors for not checking the compliance as per their instruction.

A 2019 report by Safe Work Australia indicated that 58% of serious claims for workplace injuries in the construction industry were due to falls from heights, underscoring the critical nature of accurate safety information.

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