This is the best lecture I've seen on Contract Law.... I can't wait to show this to my study group.... I zoned out in class most times cos it feels like my lecturer just keeps droning on and on... This is just perfect for me perfectly summarised and broken down... Thank you so much!!
Thanks heaps for this and the other extremely informative, educational, and well presented law clips. It has most certainly helped me achieve a higher understanding of contracts which will bode me well in my grades, and also my future. Legend.
Kain, let's remember that case was in the USA, where the civil law is utterly crazy from Australian standards. From what I can read, however, there was no actual judgment in that cass, but rather a settlement. The substance of the objection seems to have been a concern that Red Bull may not be more caffeinated than coffee. That's a different issue to whether Red Bull literally gives a person wings. Even in the United States of Crazy Laws, I suspect "Red Bull gives you wings" would be considered puffery.
Mentioned Carbolic Smoke Ball but no other cases. We, the RUclips viewers don't have access to the CQU notes. It would be appreciated if the cases can be added to the video notes.
I'll start the ball rolling Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 [2.15] Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 [2.25] MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 CLR 125 [2.35] Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 [2.60] Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 [2.110] Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International (1998) 81 FCR 475) [2.145] OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASES Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 [2.220] Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197) [9.55] (MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 CLR 125). Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 In the state of New South Wales, where I'm from, there's the postal acceptance rule but there is also the Electronic Tranactions Act which deals with emails and the like. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eta1999256/
Good on you for adding those in. When I next review these lectures I'll think about adding them in - I haven't taught Contracts for a couple of years though so it's not on my priority list :)
+Oluwatobiloba Akinbiyi There are, I am not in this class. I am in the United States. I just understand the cases he is talking about from my own work in school. He never uses them by name, just like one or two facts and the holding.
For these particular lectures most of the cases were in the lecture notes. However my two-hour contract law video has many, many cases referenced with their citations :)
De moess, not at all. Intention to create legal relations, and the nature of an offer, are different elements of formation. If you make an offer to a family member in a social environment, the nature of the relationship suggests there is no intention to be bound.
Thanks for your reply! so if there is a husband promising his wife to do the housework in return for her taking care of the pets, there is an offer 'statement of willingness to be bound' and acceptance, but the court would say there is no intention to create legal intention. As a result there is no contract whatsoever. am i correct?
Reece, these particular videos were made for my undergrad students, who also received an extensive set of notes with the caselaw in them. That's why there is no focus on the cases in this video. However, my more recent video "Contract Law in Two Hours" includes extensive references to the caselaw. The video's page also has a list of the timings so you can jump straight to the section you're after. Hope that helps!
you said that an offer is a statement expressing willingness to be bound, but u mentioned that social agreement are presumed to be having no legal intention involved. is that not contradicting
No, not really. The issues of offer and acceptance are distinct from an intention to participate in legal relations. If I offer to help my mate move house for a six pack of beer, that is an offer, and I am expressing willingness to be bound, but only in honour. If I changed my mind, then the court would find it was just a social agreement, not something that the court should be involved in. People make those sorts of promises to one another all the time.
This case certainly did happen, although the claim was for false advertising: not because the red bull didn't give the plaintiffs literal wings, but rather because the other benefits claimed - increased concentration, increased reaction time, etc - turned out not to be defensible. Bear in mind, though, that there was never a judgment against Red Bull. The $13m was a class action settlement figure.
This is the best lecture I've seen on Contract Law.... I can't wait to show this to my study group....
I zoned out in class most times cos it feels like my lecturer just keeps droning on and on... This is just perfect for me perfectly summarised and broken down... Thank you so much!!
My pleasure! I hope it helped you smash Contract Law :)
Thanks heaps for this and the other extremely informative, educational, and well presented law clips.
It has most certainly helped me achieve a higher understanding of contracts which will bode me well in my grades, and also my future.
Legend.
Kain, let's remember that case was in the USA, where the civil law is utterly crazy from Australian standards. From what I can read, however, there was no actual judgment in that cass, but rather a settlement. The substance of the objection seems to have been a concern that Red Bull may not be more caffeinated than coffee. That's a different issue to whether Red Bull literally gives a person wings. Even in the United States of Crazy Laws, I suspect "Red Bull gives you wings" would be considered puffery.
Oluwalobitoba, the cases are in the written teaching materials provided to CQU students. These lectures are just supplemental.
Thank you for uploading these
You're very welcome Diana!
Mentioned Carbolic Smoke Ball but no other cases.
We, the RUclips viewers don't have access to the CQU notes. It would be appreciated if the cases can be added to the video notes.
I'll start the ball rolling
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 [2.15]
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 [2.25]
MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1975)
133 CLR 125 [2.35]
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
[1953] 1 QB 401 [2.60]
Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 [2.110]
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International (1998) 81 FCR 475) [2.145]
OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASES
Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 [2.220]
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197) [9.55]
(MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State
Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 CLR 125).
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR
294
In the state of New South Wales, where I'm from, there's the postal acceptance rule but there is also the Electronic Tranactions Act which deals with emails and the like.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eta1999256/
Good on you for adding those in. When I next review these lectures I'll think about adding them in - I haven't taught Contracts for a couple of years though so it's not on my priority list :)
why are there no cases?
+Oluwatobiloba Akinbiyi There are, I am not in this class. I am in the United States. I just understand the cases he is talking about from my own work in school. He never uses them by name, just like one or two facts and the holding.
For these particular lectures most of the cases were in the lecture notes. However my two-hour contract law video has many, many cases referenced with their citations :)
Awesome
Bound by what law ?
Well, in this case by common law of contract 😊
offer, exception and consideration".....
De moess, not at all. Intention to create legal relations, and the nature of an offer, are different elements of formation. If you make an offer to a family member in a social environment, the nature of the relationship suggests there is no intention to be bound.
Thanks for your reply! so if there is a husband promising his wife to do the housework in return for her taking care of the pets, there is an offer 'statement of willingness to be bound' and acceptance, but the court would say there is no intention to create legal intention. As a result there is no contract whatsoever. am i correct?
This is good but no case laws. Kindly include them
Reece, these particular videos were made for my undergrad students, who also received an extensive set of notes with the caselaw in them. That's why there is no focus on the cases in this video. However, my more recent video "Contract Law in Two Hours" includes extensive references to the caselaw. The video's page also has a list of the timings so you can jump straight to the section you're after. Hope that helps!
@@AnthsLawSchool thank you so much for making these videos. Is it possible to share your notes too?
you said that an offer is a statement expressing willingness to be bound, but u mentioned that social agreement are presumed to be having no legal intention involved. is that not contradicting
No, not really. The issues of offer and acceptance are distinct from an intention to participate in legal relations. If I offer to help my mate move house for a six pack of beer, that is an offer, and I am expressing willingness to be bound, but only in honour. If I changed my mind, then the court would find it was just a social agreement, not something that the court should be involved in. People make those sorts of promises to one another all the time.
8:30 lol, just recently a bloke was awarded $13m from red bull after he sued them for not giving him wings. how could that even be possible!?!
This case certainly did happen, although the claim was for false advertising: not because the red bull didn't give the plaintiffs literal wings, but rather because the other benefits claimed - increased concentration, increased reaction time, etc - turned out not to be defensible. Bear in mind, though, that there was never a judgment against Red Bull. The $13m was a class action settlement figure.