Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, Essay Example

The defendant is innocent of all charges due to the particular wording of the agreement that the defendant and plaintiff entered. Throughout the bargaining process, the defendant offered opinions that pertained to the rental video market, which were supported by true facts. In fact, the defendant has admitted the shortcomings of her broker’s predictions. In an e-mail, she specifically states, “Just confirming our discussion from earlier today that I can’t guarantee the business will make $100,000 profit each year. The ad was a mistake by my business brokers – and I apologise.” This indicates that she has clarified a major misconception related to the case. The particulars of the breach specifically state that “The Defendant breached section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law by the misleading representations she made with regard to the current state and future viability of the business.¹” However, this is not the case because she provided the plaintiff with her opinions regarding the matter, providing him with evidence when possible, and clarifying which information provided was fact and which was opinion.

Furthermore, according to law, the plaintiff had the opportunity to remove himself from the business prior to suffering a major financial loss. According to rules of the Supreme Court 1971 – Order 24A Rule 3, the plaintiff had the ability to make counteroffers before allowing the final agreement to come to terms². Therefore, the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to request a second offer. In this discussion, the plaintiff would have benefitted from conducting his own research in the industry. It is likely that he was misinformed about the industry due to his own excitement and motivation to succeed in the video rental business.

It is important to consider that while the defendant noticed that there was some discrepancy in the financial reports she provided, these differences were not a significant amount compared to what she had predicted. Furthermore, she noted that she had mishandled her reported income, even though this portion of the report was truthful. Specifically, she had informed the plaintiff that she accrued $31,000 in late fees during her practice, which is a true reflection of the profit she made from these charges. However, the defendant has admitted that she did not believe the plaintiff would be able to make this same money, and is therefore willing to pay the plaintiff $93,000 in damages for each year that he has been in operation.

Overall, the defendant asserts that the video rental business failed due to legal download competitors, which have removed the need for video rental stores from the market. The defendant was not aware that this trend would be a major issue due to the growing prevalence of Blu-ray and other forms of physical media. Furthermore, it appears that the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the market contributed to the lack of profitability that this deal brought about. The defendant’s desire to form a compromise is valid under Order 24A Rule 2, which states “In any proceedings the plaintiff or the defendant may make to the other an offer to compromise any claim in the proceedings on the terms specified in the notice of offer”³. Furthermore, this is consistent with Rule 6, noting that an offer should not be made with prejudice. The offer is made without prejudice as evidenced by the calculations of damages performed. Therefore, this case should be settled with the defendant providing the plaintiff with $93,000 in damages, and no future action should be taken.

The plaintiff should accept the offer because he has entered a legally binding contract and is therefore not qualified to receive a full return on his investment. The claim that the defendant withheld information is false, as the misinformation was on the behalf of her brokers, which she clarified. Furthermore, the defendant is offering to provide the plaintiff with $91,000 in damages that are not legally necessary. Therefore, it is in the plaintiff’s best interest to accept this offer.

Reflection

This argument could have been improved if more information was provided. Overall, it is unclear what the plaintiff’s educational background or understanding of the financial situation of the video rental industry was. This information would have been helpful in demonstrating that the plaintiff was aware of the kind of market he was attempting to become a retailer in. It is generally recommended that individuals seek legal counsel before engaging in contracts of this kind, and the plaintiff appears to be at fault for failing to conduct this research or to seek advice.

Writing the document’s based on the materials that only the defendant should view was challenging because it prevented my ability to generate a clear picture of the facts of the case. Overall, it appeared that the defendant was in the right, but it is possible that the plaintiff had strong arguments for his case as well. This is indicative of the bias that is present in such cases. It is difficult to determine the truth of a situation when viewing a case from only one side. Since the intention of this project was back up the defendant, I have become a larger supporter of her claims.

Overall, this demonstrates that it is the responsibility of the court to listen to both biased sides of the story and determine what truth really is. The court system is beneficial because it provides a number of third party listeners to hear cases with which they had no prior affiliation. It is for this reason, among others, that the justice system works.