Foundation of Business Law
Charlie is going to rescind the contract. He demands return of his money and compensation for the loss of commission on several high profile sales of his business. He wants to rescind the contract because the package of software recommend by Carmine was obsolete, despite Carmine’s assurances.
This problem is concerned with the contents of the contract which is term in the contract, the misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct.
Charlie will claim that Carmine verbal assurances about the condition of the package of the software which recommended by Carmine was unable to utilise the Land Titles Office’s electronic lodgement of documents.
Carmine will refer to the written contract which contains a clause that there is no warranty is given about or the quality of the software. But the parol evidence will support Carmine’s contention that the contract between Charlie and Carmine which contains all the terms of the agreement. As these terms are clear and unambiguous, but there are no evidence can be admitted to change their contract.
Charlie will claim that the “Contract of Sales” because that contract between he and Carmine was no in complete record. He will persist that it is an unclear and ambiguous written contract.
If want applying the guidelines for the incorporation of oral terms it should show the guarantee about the software package in the term of the contract: * Timing of the statement
Before signing the contract, Carmine have already assured Charlie. About that the software package was widely used by several of well-established real agencies in South Australia and was “more than adequate for a small agency which was treated as a term: Van den Esschert v Chappell (1960) WAR 114.
* Where one of the parties has special skill and knowledge
Carmine is a representative of Realtor Data Ltd which is a computer company that specialises in software for the real estate industry. So he has more knowledge and skill about the software than
This problem is concerned with the contents of the contract which is term in the contract, the misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct.
Charlie will claim that Carmine verbal assurances about the condition of the package of the software which recommended by Carmine was unable to utilise the Land Titles Office’s electronic lodgement of documents.
Carmine will refer to the written contract which contains a clause that there is no warranty is given about or the quality of the software. But the parol evidence will support Carmine’s contention that the contract between Charlie and Carmine which contains all the terms of the agreement. As these terms are clear and unambiguous, but there are no evidence can be admitted to change their contract.
Charlie will claim that the “Contract of Sales” because that contract between he and Carmine was no in complete record. He will persist that it is an unclear and ambiguous written contract.
If want applying the guidelines for the incorporation of oral terms it should show the guarantee about the software package in the term of the contract: * Timing of the statement
Before signing the contract, Carmine have already assured Charlie. About that the software package was widely used by several of well-established real agencies in South Australia and was “more than adequate for a small agency which was treated as a term: Van den Esschert v Chappell (1960) WAR 114.
* Where one of the parties has special skill and knowledge
Carmine is a representative of Realtor Data Ltd which is a computer company that specialises in software for the real estate industry. So he has more knowledge and skill about the software than
References: Foundation of Business Law 2012