5 Issue In the present case issues is related to – What are the alternative probable actions in common law can be taken by Prakash against Sarah? What are the relevant legal principles for this case of Contract law assignment? Business torts are wrongful activities performed against business that assists damages to business. Some of the common types of business torts are Tortious Interference, Restraint of Trade, fraudulent misrepresentation, theft of trade secret and some others. With this aspect, fraudulent representation is the irresponsible or deliberate statement of a lie with the intention to encourage a party to enter into a contract (Deng, & Zanjani, 2018). In other words, it can be said that it is a trick which is used by person to enter into an agreement that harm that person. Further, misrepresentation can be in the form of oral, written, made by silence, gestured and others. It creates a contract invalid. In the legal case of Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Limited [1998], court held that due to misleading or deceptive conduct, damages should be provided to the injured party (Australian Contract Law 2019). There are two ways which can be used by person for addressing fraudulent misrepresentation- Rescind the contract If the contracts are made on the basis of false claims, then in such case it is voidable. The simplest manner to resolve the fraudulent misrepresentation is to void the contract. In order to rescind the contract, both parties have to return everything that is received from each other. The injured party should ask to withdraw the contract right away. The advantages from the contract should not obtained by both parties (Types of Damages for Breach of Contract 2019). Sue for damages In case of fraudulent misrepresentation discussed in this segment of Contract law assignment, one party can sue other party as it is considered as civil offence. However, mislead party is not entitled to sue for more than its damages or injuries. In some cases, mislead party can also sue for punitive damages. Application of rules and regulations in the given case In the present case of Contract law assignment, Sarah sold land to Prakash which is verbally termed as prime agriculture land. However, at the time of negotiation process Sarah told to Prakash that land was suitable for all purpose even if it was known to Sarah that the land was not appropriate for agriculture. Therefore, it can be said that for the purpose of entering into an agreement Sarah lied to Prakash that is considered as fraudulent misrepresentation. Conclusion By considering the above provisions provided in this Contract law assignment, it has been asserted that in case of fraudulent misrepresentation, Prakash has right to rescind the contract. Further, he can also sue Sarah as it is civil offense. Along with this, Prakash can also recover punitive damages. References Books and Journals Axelrod, E. (2017). Contract law assignment Mitigation of Damages in Breach of Entertainment and Other Service Contracts. Rutgers JL & Pub. Pol'y, 15, 1. Bilchitz, D., & Ausserladscheider Jonas, L. (2016). Proportionality, Fundamental Rights and the Duties of Directors. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 36(4), 828-854. Deng, Y., & Zanjani, G. (2018). What drives tort reform legislation? An analysis of state decisions to restrict liability torts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 85(4), 959-991. Ganglmair, B. (2017). Efficient material breach of contract. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 33(3), 507-540. Gelter, M., & Helleringer, G. (2015). Contract law assignment Lift Not the Painted Veil: To Whom Are Directors Duties Really Owed. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1069. Golden, J. M. (2016). Reasonable Certainty in Contract and Patent Damages. Harv. JL & Tech., 30, 257. Mishra, N. (2019). Economic Torts. Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law, 1(1), 8-14. Mullen, S. (2015). Damages for breach of contract: quantifying the lost consumer surplus. Contract law assignment Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), 83-109. Sharkey, C. M. (2018). Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages. Contract law assignment Val. UL Rev., 53, 1. Tills, M., & Wills, C. (2016). Corporate law: Directors found guilty of breaching duties following corporation's breaches. Governance Directions, 68(10), 624. Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2015). Incentives to breach. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 290-311. Wright, G. (2017). Risky Business: Enterprise Liability, Corporate Groups and Torts. Journal Of European Tort Law, 8(1), 54-77. Online Australian Contract Law. Contract law assignment (2019). Retrieved from <https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases.html> General Duties of Directors (2019). Retrieved from<https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/-/media/cd2/resources/director-resources/director-tools/pdf/05446-6-2-duties-directors_general-duties-directors_a4-web.ashx> Types of Damages for Breach of Contract. (2019). Contract law assignment Retrieved from <https://www.upcounsel.com/types-of-damages-for-breach-of-contract>
Subject Name: Business Law
Level: Undergraduate
If you want the solution to this assignment or want to discuss any other assignment or course you may contact us directly at order@bestacademicexperts.org or message us on Whatsapp or Viber at +91-9303607402 (http://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=919303607402&text=Hello%20 )
Comments