Legal Communication Verbal and Nonverbal

Question: Discuss about the Legal Communication for Verbal and Nonverbal. Answer: Introduction: Considering the facts of the given case, Bob Broke entered into a contract with several parties through electronic mails and verbal communication with several parties for considering several deals. Hence, the issues in the present situation involve whether the contract was legally valid from Bobs end. The issue further involves whether the contract incorporated validity of consent in the contract entered between Bob and different parties. In addition, the present case involves an issue to determine Bobs contractual liability for terminating the contract with Mary. As per the legal regulations on contract law, a lawful contract is associated with the rights, duties as well as obligations of parties, which should be distinguished from the regulations of law of torts. As per the Australian Corporations Law, a valid contract must have the elements of agreement, intention to legally bind the parties and consideration. As per the Australian Contract Law, it can be said that there are certain situations where contract remains invalid even though the essential elements are present and agreed between the parties (Cheung, et al., 2014, pp. 147-168). The law states that the contract remains void if it has no legal effect while the contract is voidable if the contract can be annulled by a contracting party. In case of voidable contract, the remedial effect involves returning back the amount or the contracted performance received by the parties. However, the right to obtain the contracted rescission is not available if the same is not exercised in reasonab le time or if the contractual performance changes the original position (Bayern, 2015, p 103). Further, the validity of a contract is established if the parties have certain ability to legally bind the contract whereas if any party lacks the legal ability then the contract would be held voidable. Australian contract Law provides that a contractual party is not entitled to rescind the contract if the action or performance of the party indicates the sustainability of the contract. Considering the case of Immer Pty Ltd v Uniting church in Australia Property Trust (1993) 182 CLR 26, the appellant party that is Immer entered the contract to buy land based on the grant of approval by specific date. The approval was not granted by the contracted date while the agreement was terminated and the respondent in the case contended the presence of affirmation in the contract. Besides, the court held that the affirmation in the contract cannot be obtained if the aggrieved party is not aware of the factual circumstances. However, validity of a contract also depends on the form of agreement or contract by way it has been entered between the parties. The regulations of common law states that the form of a legal contract may be in writing, verbal or any action, which is deemed sufficient to reach the agreement (Andrews Cooper, 2016, p 25). The legislation further states that certain deals or contractual performances are legally valid only if the agreement has been entered as per the specific mode of communication. For instance, the sale of land contract must be in writing and in the form of formal contracts using a contractual deed to give effect as legally binding. Contracts related to insurance or copyrights must be formed in writing using a contractual deed (Olatawura, 2014, pp. 49-75). In the case of Regent v Millett (1976) 133 CLR 679, the issue raised on part performance by constituting the possession, repairs and renovations and contractual party Regents denied to transfer the property. The cour t held that the possession of property with the expending money would be constituted as part performance hence the form of contract would be considered as valid as the possession entry held sufficient for part performance. Validity of a contract must contain the genuine consent of the parties hence, if the formation of contract established due to the contracting partys mistake, then the right to rescind the contract is available to the innocent party. In case of Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422, court held that the contract was formed which contained the factor of unilateral mistake of the party hence, the contract was held invalid and the appeal was dismissed. Apparently, a contract formed by mistake of the party and does not have genuine consent, the contract cannot be considered as a valid contract. Applying the test of essential elements of a legal contract in the given situation, contract entered between Bob and Mike on 1 January for sale of laptops is considered as a legal contract since it involves offer, acceptance and consideration. However, the element of intention of binding a contract might not present from the end of Mike and he refused to pay the consideration during the time of contract performance. In case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), the court held that Carlill was eligible to the contractual reward as the contract contained valid offer and there was no notification provided by the party to dispense the contract. Accordingly, in case of contract between Bob and Mike, Mike did not provide any notification to cancel the contract until the date of delivery of products. As per the contract law legislation, a party loses to rescind the contract if the rescission is not exercised in a reasonable time. Hence, in case of contract between Bob and Tom that was entered on 10 January and accepted on 12 January, Bob rescinded the contract on 14 January while the products were already dispatched. Hence, the Bob held liable for not rescinding the contract within reasonable time. Besides, contract between Steve and Bob entered in verbal form which was rescinded by Bob due to financial issues. Applying the test of affirmation, Bob is entitled to contractual liability and obligated to compensate Steve for breach of contract as the contract was valid and Bob did not perform rescission within reasonable time. Further, contract for delivery van entered with Mary can be considered as consent given under common mistake hence the contract remains void as per the Australian contract law. It has been observed that Bob signed the contract considering it to be another cont ract which he was willing to accept, therefore, acceptance of Marys contract held as consent given by mistake accordingly, the contract was not a legally valid contract. Conclusion In the present circumstances, Bob has the contractual liability against Tom and Steve since, the contract between the parties was valid and rescission was not performed by Bob within reasonable time. In case of contract with Bob on 1 January, Bob is entitled to receive compensation while the contract with Mary held as invalid due to consent under common mistake. Reference List and Bibliography Andrews, M., Cooper, A. (2016). Property: The land sales act: Beware of instalment contracts.LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (25), 86. Bagchi, A. (2016). Financial Crisis and the Remedy of Rescission in the United States. InThe Effects of Financial Crises on the Binding Force of Contracts-Renegotiation, Rescission or Revision(pp. 307-312). Springer International Publishing. Bayern, S. (2015). Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept.Cal. L. Rev.,103, 67. Cheung, S. O., Wong, W. K., Yiu, T. W., Pang, H. Y. (2014). Developing a trust inventory for construction contracting. InConstruction Dispute Research(pp. 147-168). Springer International Publishing. Connolly, N. (2014). A Common Law Perspective on the Concurrence of Claims in Contract and Unjust Enrichment.European Review of Private Law,22(6), 1005-1028. Kosonogova, O. (2016). Legal Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal Communication in the Practice of Law.US-China L. Rev.,13, 705. Mohamed, S., Akram, M., Mohamed, A., Ali, A. (2014). A critical appraisal of the parol evidence rule in contract law. InProceedings of SOCIOINT14: International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities(pp. 865-872). International Organisation Centre of Academic Research. Olatawura, O. O. (2014). Appreciating and reforming the remedy of equitable rescission for genuine mistake in contract law.Commonwealth Law Bulletin,40(1), 49-75.