JUST3003 Building Law

Question 1

The answer by the Chatbot to question 1 is not entirely accurate due to the failure to

directly draw from the various concepts and principles associated with building contracts. An

accurate answer to the question would also rely on the determination of the extent to which

invoking the reasonable care and skill implied term would apply to the present situation. The

foregoing is based on the understanding that the doors in question did not have an explicit

mention in the quote despite their essential role in the building’s effective function. From the

facts of the case, the Porters received a building extension quote from Stratford, accepting it

via text. The failure to install door resulted in them questioning the builder expressing

concern about the builder’s unmet obligation. In this case, the builder’s quote does not make

an explicit mention of doors, an issue whose analysis relies on legal concepts and concepts

such as offer and acceptance, reasonable care skill implied terms, common industry practice,

and fitness for purpose.1

The builder’s quote constitutes an offer accepted by the Porters through text form a

contract basis between the involved parties. In service-related contracts, the reasonable care

and skill implied that the builder was expected to perform the work based on reason

reasonable care and skill. The door installation part, although not stated explicitly in the

contract, represents a standard construction part. Lack of the doors shows failure to follow the

implied terms of care and skill on the side of the builder. Similarly, the fitness of purpose

calls for the need for the service provider to ensure a service or good fits the primary

purpose.2 The construction of the quoted part of the house without the incorporation of doors

1
Robertson, A, Paterson, J & Lawbook Co 2020, Principles of contract law, Thomson Reuters (Professional)
Australia Limited, Pyrmont, NWS.
2
Ibid.
defeats the fit for purpose concept. Doors contribute towards ensuring a construction is secure

and habitable.

The concepts of implied terms plays a crucial role in making the determination. 3 The

Chatbot did make any targeted effort to consider the various ways the concepts in question

together with how the offer and acceptance legal principles affect the case. Similarly, install

of the doors represents one of the key practices with the building and construction industry.

Despite the lack of mention of that part of the construction in the contract, a house without

doors represents a notable deviation from acceptance practices within the industry. The

response for question from the Chatbot only focused on offering an general outlook of the

possible conditions, an aspect that may not directly address the situation associated with the

door installation issue. The response failed to indicate whether the builder had an obligation

regarding doors installation.

The consideration of contract elements such as acceptance, offer, and implied terms

from the lectures and notes shows that the Porters possess a valid claim against the builder for

his failure to include doors in the constructed extension.4 The limited accuracy of the

Chatbot’s analysis is inherent in the idea it did argue in terms of breach of common practices

in the industry, fitness for purpose, and reasonable skills and care.

Question 2

The response from the Chatbot on question two misses the mark in a variety of ways

despite the plausible conclusion regarding the potential for money recovery. For instance, the

work focuses on citing case laws while not providing the basis of how they present a direct

implication on the described issue in the work. Some of the important principles and concepts

3
UWS, Contract Law – Notes for CPM (2023).
4
Robertson, A, Paterson, J & Lawbook Co 2020, Principles of contract law, Thomson Reuters (Professional)
Australia Limited, Pyrmont, NWS.
from the course that would assist in accurately dissecting and analyzing the issue in the

present scenario relate to the aspect of enforceable contract.5 A key question relates to the

aspect of whether part of the money can be recovered by Steve from Allan following the bank

for to implement the joint project. Addressing the present issue needs an examination of

whether Steve and Allan’s situation constitutes an instance of enforceable legal duty. Some of

the key concepts and principles from the class important to the case relate to agreements and

contract elements based on the understanding that LICHAA v LICHAA reference case used

in the Chatbot’s response may not provide the most effective and appropriate perspective to

the situation.

Concerning the formation of contract, Allan and Steve formed an agreement relating

to profits sharing and handling of the project. The engagements between the two parties

resulted in the development of a mutual understanding that proceeds of the work would be

shared in half, an aspect that suggests the development of a legally binding contract. Chapter

3 on the principles of contract law, it is crucial to understand the agreement between Steve

and Allan was entered with or without an offer and acceptance. The example provided in the

reading text about Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd case indicates that

discussion of crucial maters and related structural issues portrays an instance of mutual

assent.6 The same principle applies to the present scenario in which a mutual assent happened

between the parties.

The aspect of consideration requires the involvement of both parties. In Masters v

Cameron, a agreement was arrived at concerning the sell of a property.7 Even though a

formational agreement sets the stage for the creation of a contract acceptable by the involved

entities, individuals should agree to the terms. If a party shows a intent for not being bound
5
Robertson, A, Paterson, J & Lawbook Co 2020, Principles of contract law, Thomson Reuters (Professional)
Australia Limited, Pyrmont, NWS.
6
Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd v Branir Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 629; 129 FCR 558.
7
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353.
before completion, a provision for a right to pull out of the contract exists. The intention for

creating an obligatory legal relation exists.8 The foregoing relies on the understanding that the

siblings held a discussion concerning the project including how profit sharing will occur. The

findings suggests an indication for the intend to establish a working legal association

concerning the project. An analysis of the case from the perspective of the principles of

agreements and contract law in Australia shows that Steve possesses a strong legal basis for

recovery of the funds obtained from the bank for use in the project.

Question 3

The answer to this question seems inaccurate in different respects. The present

scenario requires one to establish whether a valid basis exists for Jackson to ensure the

agreement entered with S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd. The evaluation of the situation may also benefit

an exploration of the principles around when parties in a contract can be bound in which

evidence must exist showing an intention to be bound.9 There is a clear understanding of the

application of varied principles about contract law including the idea that parties need to

demonstrate an intention in which both entities are bound by the conditions and terms of the

resulting contract. In addition, the nature of an offer as set out the readings and the

termination of an offer plays a crucial role. In an offer, a party expresses willingness to enter

into the terms of a contract. In the present scenario, an offer happened in the form of a

proposal leaving the room for choosing between rejection and acceptance.

Intention represents an objective as opposed to a subjective test. The conduct of the

involved parties plays a crucial role in which a notable question relates to the idea of whether

it appears an intention for the contract emerged. For instance, a party may not claim that

although they had an intention to develop a contract with another entity, their actual intention
8
UWS, Contract Law – Notes for CPM (2023).
9
Moles, Robert, Intention to Create Legal Relations / Parties to a Contract - Law Lectures (USW, 2023).
was different. For an acceptance to take effect, offeror must receive communication as

demonstrated in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co in which the court determined that

acceptance notification relies on the level of consciousness reached by both parties in the

situation of interest. If the offeror receives an acceptance from the other party, a contract

takes effect with immediate effect.10 In the present case, the client did not receive an official

acceptance that would formalize the intention to bound as analyzed by the Chatbot. Although

Jacksom had wanted to go ahead with the offer from S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd, and the

representative from the firm had indicated the intention to involve their lawyers in contract

formulation, the firm retained a strong basis to terminate the offer.

S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd did not meet the intention to be bound in a contract based on the

communication shared by the client. There is a connection between the offer elements

principle and acceptance that represent a key consideration in the process of contract

formation. An offer in the present context suggests a willingness to observe the develop terms

with both parties agreeing to the terms. However, the statement from the firm that they could

not proceed with the intention to construct for George Jackson with a subsequent sharing of

the contract demonstrates that an enforceable contract had not been met by both parties.

S.H.A.C.N Pty Ltd legally pulled out of the offer by revoking it before official acceptance.

The withdrawal of an offer consideration also happens in instances in which it has actually

has been communicated by the offeree.11 Similarly, a promise relating to offer holding

possesses a binding effect in situations in which a consideration relating to the offer exists.

Consequently, Jackson has a diminished legal basis for contract enforceability given the

circumstances of the case.

10
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 .
11
Robertson, Andrew, Jeannie Paterson and Lawbook Co, Principles of Contract Law (Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Australia Limited, 2020).
 Bibliography

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256

Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353

Moles, Robert, Intention to Create Legal Relations / Parties to a Contract - Law Lectures

(USW, 2023)

Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd v Branir Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 629; 129 FCR 558

Robertson, Andrew, Jeannie Paterson and Lawbook Co, Principles of Contract Law

(Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, 2020)

UWS, Contract Law – Notes for CPM (2023)

Western Sydney University , Contracts Lecture Notes (2023)