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

Business law - Case Study Example6 (d)Was the appeal decision fair and equitable to the chicken growers in light of the dynamic commercial relations existing between the parties? 7 Question2 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 civilized Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and Its Common Features 15 Professional Liability associated with Dr Zola towards Rubicon Holding Ltd 16 References 18 Question 1 (a) Provide a utterly account of the commercial background of the case, and key aspects/clauses of the standardized recoil in dispute between the parties. The Federal Court of Australia issued its judgement in the case of Steggles express v Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd 2012 FCAFC 91 under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) of produceual dispute. The joint judgement made by Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ, concord that appeal should be duly allowed to Yarrabee (applicant) as against Steggles ( quetchtiff). 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 other growers including Yarrabee Chicken Company which included Growers to grow chickens with the application of tunnel growing methods. On the grounds of good luck of contract, Yarrabee filed proceedings against Steggles under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) suing Steggles with respect to the confusion raised from a special contractual term of spear carrier Shed capacity which could have implied the assistance to be rendered by Steggles in terms of increased physical capacity to grow more birds or by 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 Yarrabee and Steggles. It was under this particular clause of the contract that Steggles was considered to be liable to twist any extra shed capacity to the Growers in preference to any other third ships company which apparently depicts the occurrence of a contractual dispute. (b) Regarding the pivotal clause 7.4, what case law principles governed its proper construction, in the view of the judges (Jacobson, Lander & Foster JJ) on appeal? The primary judge affirmed that the phrase 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, St eggles 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,