Problem 1
a. Charlie breached the agreement he had made with Ali. According to the agreement, Charlie was not expected to open a flower shop for two years within a distance of 2 kilometres. Charlie went against the contract and opened a new flower shop 1 kilometre away from the old flower shop, which he had sold to Ali for $45,000 (New Zealand Parliament, 1993).
b. The legal rules related to the problem concern breach of contract. Charlie did not remain loyal to the agreement, which is an essential element in honoring contractual obligations. Enough information and evidence are required before one person sues another. There should be legal documents that indicate when the agreement between the two people was made and the terms and conditions related to the issue.
c. The central issue in the case is breach of contract. Charlie did not wait for the expiry of the period they had agreed upon. He also set up the flower shop 1 kilometre away, although they had agreed that the business should be at least 2 kilometres from Ali’s flower shop.
d. No. It is clear from the information that, during the negotiation of the terms and conditions to be written formally in the agreement, the two used their solicitors. They did not go to court to agree on the precise conditions that should be included in the contract. Ali may not win if there is no official written document proving what they agreed on. If the agreement was not intended to be legally binding, taking legal action would make the problem difficult to resolve.
Problem 2
a. It is necessary to consider that Nick did not pay as he had agreed with the station sergeant. The security service was provided to all people who attended the party, and the event was successful. The safety of the event was facilitated by the police, who should be paid because they were providing private security rather than ordinary public-security services.
b. The legal rule relevant to this case concerns failure to pay for services that were provided. The agreement had been made, and Nick should have adhered to the binding terms and conditions. They had agreed that Nick would pay $1,000 if the police officers were stationed at the entrance for the whole night.
c. The main issue is breach of contract. Nick, who had been provided with security for the entire night, refused to pay the charges that he had agreed upon with the station sergeant. Nick was sued by the Police Department because of the breach of contract. He refused to pay for the service that was provided under the payment agreement (New Zealand Parliament, 2017).
d. Nick will not win the case because he was provided with services but refused to pay. If the police were undertaking their ordinary patrol duties alone, they would not have asked for any money. In this case, the police officers stayed at the entrance during the party, which took place throughout the night. The Student Union party was a private affair, and those responsible for it were expected to pay for the services. Nick will not win because he agreed to the proposal to pay for the security provided by the police officers.
Problem 3
a. The issue for consideration is that Mike was expected to pay Helen her money by 24 June 2018, but unfortunately, Mike, who is a motor mechanic, lost his job and had little hope of finding another job. Helen told Mike to bring $1,000 by the date they had agreed upon and to check her BMW, which had a steering problem. Mike agreed to the conditions provided by Helen, but later she sued Mike for the remaining amount, even though Mike had worked for her.
b. The legal rules for this situation concern the recovery of debts and the conditions under which one individual can sue another because of failure to pay a debt. In this case, Helen wants to recover the debt despite the fact that they had previously agreed that if Mike checked the steering of Helen’s BMW and paid $1,000, the matter would be settled.
c. The main fact is that Mike was unable to pay the debt that was expected to be cleared by 24 June 2018. However, Helen agreed with Mike that if he brought $1,000 and checked the steering of her BMW, she would not sue him. They agreed that the debt would be settled after he checked the steering of the car and paid the agreed amount. Later, Mike learned that Helen was suing him even though they had settled the matter.
d. Helen will not win the case because the debt was compensated for by repairing her car and paying $1,000. Mike had worked for her, and they had agreed on all the issues underlying the situation. Secondly, Mike could not pay the original debt because he had lost his job, and Helen was aware of the situation. Mike had earlier informed Helen about what had happened to him and had given a logical reason why he would not be able to pay the debt as originally agreed.
Problem 4
a. The issue is Lizzie’s hiring of a DVD and failure to return it on time. Lizzie was a member of the local video store, and she had paid $100 as a membership fee. Lizzie was entitled to enjoy all kinds of movies from the local store for the next three months. After she borrowed the DVD, she became sick and could not return it. The DVD was to be returned after one night of hire, and Lizzie could not return it on time.
b. The legal rules for the situation state that the DVD hire was restricted to one night only. The terms and conditions required it to be returned by 3 p.m., and if it was not returned by then, the charge for each additional day was $20. Lizzie had read and agreed to the terms and conditions before becoming a member of the local video store. When one fails to return the DVD on time, the charges must be paid according to the stated rules.
c. The principal issue is failure to adhere to the standards and regulations of the local video store. The terms and conditions indicate the charges that are imposed when a customer fails to return a movie on time. Lizzie could not return the movie on time because she was sick.
d. The DVD store would win the case because, according to the rules and regulations, Lizzie had violated them. Before joining the local video store, Lizzie was informed about the terms and conditions that bound the agreement, and all members were expected to adhere to them. Despite being sick, she would have to pay the charges that were imposed because she could have sent someone else to return the DVD.
Problem 5
a. The issue for consideration is Tori’s dress, which was damaged by the dry cleaner during the cleaning process. After the damage occurred, the dry cleaner refused to pay for it, and Tori decided to sue. Tori had signed an agreement stating that the dry cleaner was not responsible for any damage that occurred during cleaning. She did not read the document before signing it because it did not appear to contain any obligations or contractual conditions.
b. The legal issue is that the owner of the dry cleaner refuses to pay for the damage. Tori had signed the document stating that the dry cleaner would not be responsible for any damage that occurred. If Tori had agreed to the terms and conditions, she might not be able to claim compensation.
c. The main issue is the damage to Tori’s dress by the dry cleaner. Tori took the dress to the dry cleaner because it was filthy after a party. She signed an agreement stating that if the dress was damaged or lost, the owner of the dry-cleaning business would not be responsible. Tori wants to sue the owner of the dry cleaner because of the damage, but she had entered into an agreement stating that no compensation would be provided for damage or loss.
d. Tori will not win in court because she had already agreed that if the dress was damaged or lost, the dry cleaner would not be responsible. She will not be compensated because the agreement she signed is clear. She may bear the consequence of signing the document before reading the information contained in it.
Problem 6
a. Consideration should be given to the fact that Mr. Smith advised Sandra about the copier that he believed was the best. Mr. Smith did not force Sandra to buy such a copier. He only made a recommendation, and Sandra was free to choose the type of equipment she wanted to buy. During the buying process, Sandra did not involve Mr. Smith in helping her choose the best copier. However, the copier purchased by Sandra was very slow and could not handle the volume of work she expected it to do.
b. The relevant provisions of the applicable goods legislation deal with the buying and selling of goods or services. Sandra was competent, but she was not very familiar with copiers or with the equipment she needed (Sims, 2016).
c. The main issue is the recommendation of equipment that is slow, cannot handle the amount of work the owner needs it to do, and continually overheats. The copier that Mr. Smith recommended to Sandra cannot perform the functions that Sandra needs. When Sandra tried to inform Mr. Smith about the copier, he said that the issue was between Sandra and the manufacturer. He had completed his role of recommending the equipment according to his understanding.
d. Sandra may have no claim against Mr. Smith because he only recommended the type of copier Sandra might buy. The case would instead concern the manufacturer or seller and Sandra because they were the parties involved in the buying and selling agreement. It may not concern Mr. Smith because he was not involved in any terms and conditions regarding the copier. If the copier has a warranty, it should be returned to the manufacturer or seller, who can address the issues involving the machine’s speed, the volume of work it can perform, and cracks in the glass.
Bibliography
Sims, A. (2016). The guarantee of delivery of goods under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and its implications for Australia.
New Zealand Parliament. (1993). Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. New Zealand Legislation.
New Zealand Parliament. (2017). Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. New Zealand Legislation.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
