HD and Dean's List Full Course Notes

Description

HD and Dean's List Extensive Complete Course Notes. Covering every topic and lecture for the whole term. Topics covered: Week 1 (Express Terms): What is a contract term, incorporation by signature (L'Estrange v Graucob, Toll (FGCT) v Alphapharm (2004) 219 CLR 165, Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co), incorporation by notice and timing requirements (Oceanic Sun Line v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon), the red hand rule for onerous terms, incorporation by course of dealing (Rinaldi and Patroni v Precision Mouldings, Balmain New Ferry v Robertson), the parol evidence rule and its two limbs (SRA of NSW v Heath Outdoor, Hoyt's v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133), entire agreement clauses, oral statements as terms vs mere representations (Oscar Chess v Williams, Dick Bentley v Harold Smith, Equuscorp v Glengallen Investments (2004) 218 CLR 471), and the five classification factors (importance, special knowledge, promise vs opinion, lapse of time, request to verify). Week 2 (Construction of Express Terms and Implied Terms): Objective approach to construction and the Arnold v Britton principles, admissibility of surrounding circumstances (Western Export Services v Jireh International (2011) 282 ALR 604, Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640, Mount Bruce Mining v Wright Prospecting (2015) 256 CLR 104, Royal Botanic Gardens v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45, Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451, Ecosse Property Holdings v Gee Dee Nominees (2017) 261 CLR 544), exclusion clauses and the contra proferentem rule (Darlington Futures v Delco Aust (1986) 161 CLR 500), terms implied in fact and the BP Refinery five-part test (BP Refinery (Westernport) v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266, Byrne v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410), terms implied in law and the necessity test (University of Western Australia v Gray (2009) 179 FCR 346), terms implied by custom (Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterthur (1986) 160 CLR 226), and the duty of good faith debate in Australia (Renard Constructions v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234, Commonwealth Bank v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169, Burger King v Hungry Jack's NSWCA 187). Week 3 (Termination for Breach and Repudiation): Framework for rights to terminate, classification of terms (conditions, warranties, intermediate and innominate terms), the Tramways Advertising definition of a condition (Tramways Advertising v Luna Park (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632), Associated Newspapers v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322, the Hong Kong Fir intermediate term category and the breach-consequence test (Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki 2 QB 26), Koompahtoo v Sanpine (2007) 233 CLR 115, repudiation and renunciation (objective test, principles from Koompahtoo, Carr v JA Berriman (1953) 89 CLR 327, Progressive Mailing House v Tabali (1985) 157 CLR 17, DTR Nominees v Mona Homes (1978) 138 CLR 423), instalment contracts (Maple Flock v Universal Furniture Products ). Week 4 (Consequences of Termination, Election, and Frustration): Election between affirmation and termination, principles of election, affirmation keeping the contract alive for both parties (Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159), readiness and willingness to perform (Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385), waiver and estoppel (Agricultural and Rural Finance v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570, Tropical Traders v Goonan (1964) 111 CLR 41), the frustration doctrine and Davis Contractors test (Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC , Taylor v Caldwell (1863), Krell v Henry , Brisbane City Council v Group Projects (1979) 145 CLR 143, Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority (1982) 149 CLR 337), limits on frustration (self-induced frustration, force majeure clauses, degree of radical change), consequences of frustration at common law and under the Frustrated Contracts Act. Week 5 (Damages for Breach of Contract): The compensation principle and Robinson v Harman (1848), three principal measures (expectation, reliance, loss of a chance), cost of rectification vs diminution in value (Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613, Tabcorp Holdings v Bowen Investments (2009) 236 CLR 272), damages for loss of a chance (Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301), reliance damages (Commonwealth v Amann Aviation (1991) 174 CLR 64: election, burden of proof, loss-making contract problem, Deane J on unified reliance and expectation), gains-based damages and the Australian position (Attorney General v Blake 1 AC 268, Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union (2001) 110 FCR 157). Week 7 (Limitations on the Award of Damages): Causation and the but-for test in contract (March v Stramare (1991), Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp (1987) 9 NSWLR 310), remoteness and the two-limb rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) (Limb 1 natural loss, Limb 2 both parties' contemplation at time of contracting, Stuart v Condor Commercial Insulation NSWCA 334), contract vs tort remoteness distinction, the duty to mitigate (principles, Burns v MAN Automotive (1986) 161 CLR 653, Simonius Vischer v Holt and Thompson 2 NSWLR 322, Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1), non-pecuniary loss for distress and disappointment (Baltic Shipping v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344, Mason CJ's principle), loss of bargain damages on termination (Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620), liquidated damages and the penalties doctrine (three-stage analysis from Australia Capital Financial Management v Linfield Developments NSWCA 99, Andrews v ANZ Banking Group (2012) 247 CLR 205 on Australia's wider equitable doctrine, the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre four indicators, Paciocco v ANZ (2016) 258 CLR 525 on legitimate interests and out of all proportion test, departure from English Makdessi position, consequences of a penalty finding). Week 8 (Vitiating Factors: Rescission and Misrepresentation): Overview of vitiating factors (misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, unconscionable dealing, statutory unconscionability), rescission as a remedy (restitutio in integrum, requirements, equity's flexible approach: Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216, partial rescission: Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (1995) 184 CLR 102), five bars to rescission (affirmation: Coastal Estates v Melevende VR 433, lapse of time, third party rights, impossibility of restitution, executed contracts for innocent misrepresentation), elements of actionable misrepresentation, statements of opinion as statements of fact where representor has superior knowledge (Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 ChD 7, Public Trustee v Taylor VR 289), silence and non-disclosure including the half-truth doctrine (Davies v London and Provincial Marine Insurance Co (1878)), reliance and inducement (Redgrave v Hurd (1881), Nicholas v Thompson VLR 554), types of misrepresentation and consequences table (fraudulent, negligent, innocent with remedies for each). Week 9 (Undue Influence and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct): Undue influence: two categories (actual undue influence, and presumed from deemed or proved relationships: Allcard v Skinner (1887)), rebuttal by independent advice, Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113, Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85 (quality of advice, emotional vulnerability, both undue influence and unconscionable dealing). ACL s 18 misleading or deceptive conduct: structure of the prohibition (replaces s 52 TPA), the trade or commerce requirement (Concrete Constructions v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594, O'Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107), what constitutes misleading conduct and the overall impression test (ACCC v TPG Internet (2013) 250 CLR 640, Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2004) 218 CLR 592), silence as misleading conduct (Miller and Associates Insurance Broking v BMW Australia Finance (2010) 241 CLR 357, Demagogue v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31), representations about future matters and the reversed onus (Accounting Systems 2000 v CCH Australia (1993) 42 FCR 470), ACL remedies table (s 236 damages, s 237 court orders, s 232 injunctions, s 243 declarations), causation under ACL (Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459). Week 10 (Unconscionable Dealing and Statutory Unconscionability): Elements of equitable unconscionable dealing (special disability, defendant's knowledge, exploitation: Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362, Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 extending disability to emotional vulnerability, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne (2013) 250 CLR 392 on victimisation requirement and limits of the doctrine), ACL ss 20 to 21 statutory unconscionability (s 20 unwritten law, s 21 all circumstances test, s 21(2) factors, s 22 business transactions factors, ASIC v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1 on the contested nature of exploitation, ACCC v Quantum Housing Group (2021) 281 FCR 133 broadening s 21 beyond equitable doctrine's victimisation requirement), Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) (s 7 unjust contracts, s 9 factors, scope limited to non-commercial contracts in NSW, broader than equity but narrower than ACL, frequently pleaded alongside s 21). Online Module Topics: Mistake (common mistake and the Bell v Lever Brothers narrow test, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 on assumed responsibility defeating mistake doctrine, mistake in equity and rectification elements and standard), duress (elements, physical, goods and economic duress, the legitimate commercial pressure distinction, underdeveloped HCA position), consumer guarantees under the ACL (ss 51 to 62 goods and services guarantees, non-excludable nature, consumer definition, remedies for major and minor failures). Extended Analysis: Construction principles in depth (objective approach and its limits, Codelfa as authority on surrounding circumstances, admissibility distinctions: Western Export Services v Jireh), unfair contract terms regime (ACL Part 2-3, significant imbalance test, exclusions for main subject matter, standard form and small business contract application), consumer protection ACL remedies in depth (s 236 causation and the by requirement: Gates v City Mutual Life (1986) 160 CLR 1, ACL reliance vs expectation measure, Murphy v Overton Investments (2004) 216 CLR 388 blurring reliance and expectation under ACL), termination for delay and time of the essence, contingent conditions (condition precedent, waiver, implied obligation not to prevent satisfaction), extended analysis of Codelfa (frustration, implied terms, and surrounding circumstances), extended analysis of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation (expectation vs reliance election, loss-making contract burden, Deane J's unified analysis).