Carolyn v Adam

Carolyn v Adam - Carolyn v Adams Gorge Scrambling Pty Ltd....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Carolyn v Adam’s Gorge Scrambling Pty Ltd. Question 1 Adam, a final year marketing student at Monash University decides to quit university and establish a business called “Adam’s Gorge Scrambling Pty Lt.” His customer Carolyn was injured due to poor safety equipment and wrong advice given by Adam and Liu Wu broke her camera. Carolyn asks Adam to cover her medical expenses and Adam refuses saying, ‘Don’t be silly. Didn’t you read what you signed?’ referring to the Certificate of Adrenaline Junkie that the girls had signed. They had assumed it to be some form of receipt as told by Adam and therefore did not pay particular attention to what the form stated. The form actually stated that the girls ‘agree to navigate Tully River with minimum safety equipment and will not sue him if they are injured.’ The problem here is whether Adam is liable for damages for breach of contractual terms and therefore there are several legal points to consider here. The first question here is whether a legally binding contract exists between Carolyn, Li Wu and Adam. In this case, Adam is the offeror, making the offer. Carolyn and Li Wu is the offeree, making an acceptance. The law in this area states that for a contract to be legally binding, there must be an agreement, have intention and have consideration. The girls agree on phone to pay Adam $80 after a discussion, which is amount to a consideration and agreement. Therefore, the contract for service exists. The next issue raised here is whether the certificate appeared to be contractual or not. According to Carolyn and Li Wu, the certificate did not appear to be contractual and they also did not read it as they assumed it to be a certificate not a contract. Adam had also not taken any steps to bring the clause to their attention. The relevant law says that a person is not bound by his or her signature if no reasonable person would have realised the document they signed was a contract as in ‘Le Mans Grand Prix Circuits v Ilidias 1 ’. Therefore, Carolyn and Li Wu are not bound by their signatures and there would be no contract about the terms stated in the signed document. Otherwise, if the certificate appears to be contractual, Carolyn and Li Wu will be bound by their signatures and cannot claim for the compensation from Adam as he had not misrepresented the terms. The issue is whether the poster ‘Gorge Scrambling in Queensland’ advertising was an offer or an invitation to treat. The poster or advertising did not provide relevant information about Adam since he regarded himself to be a professional to induce Carolyn and Li Wu to join the trip. The court hold that the advertising is not an offer but an invitation to treat because it was 1 (1998) 4 VR 661
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course BUS ECO 101 taught by Professor Nguyen during the Three '11 term at Monash.

Page1 / 5

Carolyn v Adam - Carolyn v Adams Gorge Scrambling Pty Ltd....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online