Pat Macguire Case

1498 Words3 Pages

Pat Macguire would need to prove that there was a valid contract between both the parties, to be eligible to sue Brad Newman for damages, loss of income.

While Bradley Newman AC must prove there was not a valid contract to escape being sued for damages.

Was there a Valid Contract?
Issue:
It must be established that the key elements and characteristics that are required of a contract so that the courts can assist in enforcing it. The essential characteristics that are required of any contract are;
I. Offer
II. Acceptance
III. Intention to be bound
IV. Consideration
V. Mutuality
VI. Capacity
VII. Legality

The elements in dispute are:

I. Offer
¬ Was there an offer?
♣ An offer is a clear statement of terms upon which the offeror is prepared …show more content…

Capacity

¬ Did Pat have the legal Capacity?

♣ A minor in Australia is anyone under the age of 18 years.
♣ Pat Newman is a Minor, as stated in the article, he is 17 years of age.
♣ Therefore, the contract is invalid and he is not eligible to sue Brad Newman QC for damages (loss of wages)

♣ Common law/Statute (Minors Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW)- States that in Australia anyone who is under the age of 18years is a minor.

♣ Brad Newman QC will argue that Pat is ineligible to sue for damages (loss of income) for discharging the contract early because the contract is not enforceable as he is a minor according to the ‘Common law/Statute (Minors Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW)’
♣ Pat can argue that is was a beneficial employment contract which is binding even on minors if proved that the contract as a whole is for the benefit of the minor.
♣ Roberts v Grey shows a minor will be bound by a contract of service or employment if this contract is beneficial to them
♣ The contract was for the benefit of Pat because it provided him with money, education and training into the field as stated by Brad Newman ‘stay with me I will make sure that you learn all about this business and it’ll set you up for the future’, even if some clauses in the contract are at a disadvantage, the contract as a whole was beneficial to …show more content…

Lethbridge then started his own practise in Toowoomba after a year and Hamilton pursued an injunction to disallow Lethbridge to practise in Toowoomba, where Lethbridge pleaded infancy at the time of entering the contract, the court found that even though some clauses were detrimental to Lethbridge, the contract as a whole was found beneficial, therefore it was

Open Document