Law Report

Table of Contents

Question 1 3

a. Voidable Contract 3

b. Termination by frustration and remedies 4

c. Advise for QIE about Illegality of object 5

d. Consideration, Estoppel & Remedies 6

e. Negligent of QIE, Duty of Care and Remedy to Collinsville and Ravenswood 8

Question 2 10

a. Remedies for Sichuan under the common law 10

b. management approve relating to this case 12

Question 3 13

a. An Account of the Relevant Facts 13

The Progression of the Court Proceedings from the Court of First Instance to the Appellant Courts 13

b. the interpretation of Bryan v Maloney 15

c. High Court Application of Legal Principles in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd concerning Professional Negligence in Woolcock Street Investments 16

Reference: 18

Question 1

a. Voidable Contract

Based on the case described, Casablanca Explosives (“Casablanca”), an Ammonium Nitrate/ Fuel Oil (“ANFO”) provider of Queensland Industrial Explosives Ltd (“QIE”) was located in southwest Morocco, on the basis of an ongoing annual contract. Moreover, Ravenswood Coalfields Ltd (“Ravenswood”) and Collinsville Minerals (“Collinsville”) are the major customers of QIE in Australia. In order to discuss if there were any of these three contracts can be avoided, the relevant principles are necessarily required.

A voidable contract is one which a party may avoid, this is, get out of, if that party wishes to do so. Such as a person who was induced to enter into a contract by the other party’s fraud may avoid the contract. Moreover, In Australia, when there is a contract built between fraudulent misrepresentation party and innocent misrepresentation party, the contract can be voidable; on the other hand, when one of the parties of the contract is negligent misrepresentation, the contract can still remain valid.

To judge whether the party is fraudulent or not, it is very commended to present the each of the following elements:

1) There is a statement of fact; and

2) That...