Case Study Mildura Office Equipment Canon Finance

The Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd case was heard at SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.DODDS-STREETON J was the judge of this case. The judge controls the courtroom and ensures evidence in relevant. If the defendant pleads guilty or the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge will decide the sentence.

The judge is addressed as ‘YOUR HONOUR’ and usually wears a wig and a robe.Medium Neutral Citation (Unreported Judgments)Medium neutral citation is a method of citing an unreported judgment which does not discriminate between judgmentsPublished in electronic or print formats.Citations should include:Each court has an identifier and within each year each judgment is given a running number. Each paragraph within the case is numbered which increases precision in pinpoint citation within a decision.

• Parties names (in italics) + Year of publication in square brackets + Court abbreviation + Judgment number
• Pinpoint reference square brackets, following “at”

e.g. Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43Justelle Nominees Pty Ltd v Martin [No 2] [2009] WASC 15 at [10]4.Unilateral contract is one in which an offer is made inviting acceptance by actual performance rather than by a promise. For example, the offer of a reward for the return of a lost dog is accepted by the return of the dog.5.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company Limited [1] ("Carlill v Carbolic") class established the definition of a unilateral contract.There was no consideration, and that it was nudum pactum.

There are two considerations here. One is the consideration of the inconvenience of having to use this carbolic smoke ball for two weeks three times a day; and the other more important consideration is the money gain likely to accrue to the defendants by the enhanced sale of the smoke balls, by reason of the plaintiff's user of them. There is ample consideration to support this promise. I have only to add that as regards the policy and the wagering points, in my judgment, there is nothing in either of them.Appeal was dismissed.6. The principles governing the formation of contracts frequently described as "unilateral" contracts were authoratively established in the land mark case of Carlill v Carbolic7.

Dobbs-Stretton J regards, Mr Blancato was a consistent, direct and credible witness. In the case of a conflict, He prefers his evidence to that of Mr Janssen.8.There is no evidence that the plaintiff currently retains any machines to which the defendant is entitled or that it is likely to persist in the collection of the defendant’s machines, given its failure to establish its claim in this proceeding. Judge not satisfied that there is a present or likely future conflict.

Although the defendant submitted that more CFA machines may be held by the plaintiff, there are as yet no facts "fully known or found". In such circumstances, there is no basis for injunctive or declaratory relief.9.The plaintiff claims that the defendant’s representatives, in the course of a five minute comic skit at a Canon Australia business dealers’ conference in February 1998, made a contractual offer to sell all Canon photocopiers (save for two models) subject to CFA rental agreements within the dealer’s area to that dealer for only $1 when the rental agreements expired or terminated (irrespective of whether its dealership was by that stage still on foot), in consideration for the dealer procuring its customers to enter rental agreements with the defendant.

The plaintiff maintains that it accepted the defendant’s contractual offer by procuring a customer to enter a rental agreement with the defendant in April 1998, thereby concluding a "unilateral" contract of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company Limited[1] ("Carlill v Carbolic") class. It argues that the parties subsequently agreed to successive additional terms of the contract, which expanded the types and brands of machines available for the $1 purchase. Throughout the plaintiff’s Canon Australia business dealership, it purchased various photocopiers and office equipment from the defendant for $1 at the end of their rental agreements.

After the plaintiff’s Canon Australia business dealership was terminated in February 2003, the defendant refused to sell the plaintiff photocopiers or other equipment for $1 at the end of the rental agreements. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has thereby breached the contract.10.The plaintiff did not present its argument on the basis of either category of cases discussed in Vroon, but for completeness, he expresses the view that neither category applies in the present case. It was not "impossible at the trial to ascertain what was said or what correspondence passed between the parties".

Further, the evidence of the parties’ conduct and communications after the conference does not establish that they were acting on the basis that a contract existed. That is why his argument was fail.11.a) The case citation for the appealMildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] VSC 42.b) The appeal made by plaintiff is rejected by the court because the plaintiff, Mr Janssen’s statement was inconsistent, shifting and sketchy and lack of detail whereas Mr Blancato was a consistent, direct and credible witness.c)12.I think that this case was dealt with fairly because the plaintiff put its case solely in contract and thus faced the relatively high hurdles attending such a claim.

In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a unilateral contract constituted by the defendant’s offer made at the conference in February 1998 and accepted by the plaintiff’s procurement of its customers’ entry into rental agreements with CFA. It follows that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed. There is no evidence that the plaintiff currently retains any machines to which the defendant is entitled or that it is likely to persist in the collection of the defendant’s machines, given its failure to establish its claim in this proceeding.

The witness provided by plaintiff is inconsistencies, imprecision, equivocation and lack of detail.

Part B

Question 1

R reached an agreement with Greg because in starting Raymond offered to sell his computer to William for $ 1000 and he kept the offer open for next 3 days, but before William accepts the offer R got offer from Greg for $1200 and R called William that he is withdrawing the offer as he gets offer from Greg for $ 1200 and now William wants to accept the offer but he can’t accept the offer as R has withdraw the offer. R can withdraw the offer before the person to whom the offer was made didn’t accept. So R reached an agreement with Greg.

Question 2

a) In discussion if Jenny accepts to buy the car then this is an oral contract. But the e-mail which was sent by Ian to Jenny, making it impossible for Jenny to perform. Because he is presuming himself that if she did not reply then also she will buy the car.

Firstly it depends on discussion if at that time they agreed to do so then Jenny has to pay for the car and if she refuses then that will be breach of contract not performed by one party. Ian can sue Jenny and court may make decision in favour of Ian.b) This is oral contract between Jenny and Ian. And if Jenny waits for the delivery but Ian fails to arrive and refuses to sell then legal implication will be Ian has to pay the damages or have to sell the car. Because the contract was already made between the Two of them at the time of discussion and the email which Ian sent to Jenny that doesn’t make much difference as if the email was not sent then also Ian have to sell the car and Jenny have to buy it in reasonable time.

Legal implications will be court may order to sell the car to Jenny at $20,000.