Business law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Business law - Case Study Example6 (d)Was the solicitation decision fair and equitable to the whiner growers in light of the dynamic commercial relations real between the parties? 7 misgiving2 8 Overview of the Case 8 Common Law 9 Equitable Remedies 10 Specific performance in Equity 11 Common Law Exceptions to the Privity of Contract 11 Question 3 14 Overview of the Case 14 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and Its Common Features 15 skipper Liability associated with Dr Zola towards Rubicon Holding Ltd 16 References 18 Question 1 (a) Provide a pathetic account of the commercial background of the case, and key aspects/clauses of the standardized choose in dispute between the parties. The federal Court of Australia issued its judgement in the case of Steggles Limited v Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd 2012 FCAFC 91 at a lower place the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) of squelchual dispute. The joint judgement made by Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ,agree that appeal sho uld be duly allowed to Yarrabee (applicant) as against Steggles (plaintiff). In 2004, Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd was reputed as one of the chicken growers in the Hunter Valley, which had arrived into a contract with Steggles Limited. The contract was in the same form to all former(a) growers including Yarrabee Chicken Company which included Growers to grow chickens with the application of tunnel growing methods. On the grounds of gaolbreak of contract, Yarrabee filed proceedings against Steggles under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) suing Steggles with honour to the confusion increase from a particular contractual term of extra Shed content which could have implied the assistance to be rendered by Steggles in terms of increased physical capacity to grow more birds or with the facility of growing extra number of birds in the given capacity. The major issues of the case dealt with the specification of clause7.4 articulated in the contract between Y arrabee and Steggles. It was under this particular clause of the contract that Steggles was considered to be liable to pr provide any extra shed capacity to the Growers in preference to any other third troupe which apparently depicts the occurrence of a contractual dispute. (b) Regarding the pivotal clause 7.4, what case law principles governed its proper grammatical construction, in the view of the judges (Jacobson, Lander & Foster JJ) on appeal? The primary judge affirmed that the parlance extra shed capacity, as articulated in the clause 7.4 of the contract bound Steggles to offer to the growers, first and in preference to any third party, the capacity to grow any bird to be processed at the Beresfield processing plant in one of the Growers sheds on their farms. The second judgement with respect to the case affirmed that Steggles had resulted in the breach of contract against the terms articulated in cl 7.4(a) of the contract entered between the Growers and Steggles. In this particular context, Steggles was found to breach the contract against the terms illustrated under cl 7.4 (a) of the contract as the judges concluded that the evidence makes plain that Steggles distributed chickens to other growers for processing at the Beresfield plant when the Growers had capacity to grow those chickens. However, Steggles was not satisfied with the above stated findings made by the primary judges and appealed against those findings. Contextually,