LAWS12056 Henry Chequer Case Study Sample

• Subject Code : LAWS12056
• University : Central Queensland University My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Law

Equity and Trust Act

Issues

• Whether Henry is liable for the losses caused to him?
• Whether Henry is exploited by the Conrad, the manager of the Star Gazer’s?
• Are there any remedies and any defenses that may be provided or applied in the particular situation and circumstances?

Rules

• Common Law
• Equity and trust Act
• Blomely v. Ryan (1954) 99 CLR 362
• Commercial Bank of Australia v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
• Louth v. Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
• Kakavas v. Crown Melbourn Ltd. (2013) HCA 25

Applications

In the light of the present case and circumstances of the matter the legal principles which are allowed by the court and also known as the collections of the legal principles which amounts to the fair result in the matters which appeared to be harsh and strict on the society of the common law that shall lead to injustice anyhow is known as equity. In the situation of Henry, he lived in the country since last thirty years and used to run a small dairy farm. Henry was a hard-working person as he used to work all day and night. Henry was addicted to the habit of drinking alcohol and the habit or addiction was of drinking alcohol too much. In the case of Blomely v. Ryan (1954) 99 CLR 362 the court held that drinking alcohol to an extent for any individual can be harmful, not only to the health but also to the up coming future. In the present situation Henry being an alcoholic had to face a counselling for an alcohol dependency, also because of such action of counselling Henry in the year 2005 kept himself away from such habits. In the year 2015 Henry took a large amount of money from his aunt and was amazed by listening to the price of windfall, therefore, the amount was of 10 million.

Henry also invested in 5 million in the decision for the changes that shall occur in the year 2016, also in 2016 Henry sells its farm and purchased an apartment in the city. The apartment of Henry was only 100 meters away from the Star Gazer’s Casino. Henry started going to the casino frequently and played baccarat. Furthermore, Henry started going more often and enjoy playing baccarat. A day while Henry was playing and enjoying the self -time while playing the game on the table, Henry started the intake of Alcohol frequently. Henry soon developed the habit of winning the game and increase in gambling capricious. The loss of Henry sometimes by of $20,000 only at one sitting. Therefore, in such situation Henry blames the manager of the Star Gazer Conrad, Conrad reaction to the situation was very light and opposite to the reactions of Henry.

In the case of Commercial Bank of Australia v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, it was held that the person who was intoxicant made the contract, therefore, the contract made in certain condition of intoxication shall be void and not valid. In the case of Louth v. Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 the court held that the entire case becomes null and void because any contract made by the person who is intoxicant or drugged is not a liable for any legal contract as per the common law of equity of Australia. Further, in the case of Kakavas v. Crown Melbourn Ltd. (2013) HCA 25 the court upheld the same decision which was held in the case of Louth v. Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621. Henry was not in the senses and the act committed by Henry of causing himself a lose of 1 million for which he makes the manager of the casino liable for the loss.

As an advisor to Henry it is very important to understand the meaning of equity and the laws framed in the equity, the legal action which can be taken by Henry against the Casino can be that the contract can be considered null and void as mentioned in the above case that no person shall be liable to make a contract or any contract and deal done while the either of the parties is intoxicated shall be considered as null and void. Therefore, the deal and the contract were yet made and done while Henry was intoxicated so as per the rules and regulations of the equity and common law Act, Henry shall be considered to be an innocent person and therefore shall be liable only for the invalid contract.

Conclusion

From the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case it has been concluded that Henry was an addict to consuming of alcohol, and have committed certain actions while being intoxicant, and the case laws mentioned in the situation above clearly shows the condition and validity of any contract and deal made. The mentioned case also explained that any contract made while the person is intoxicant or drugged the particular deal and agreement shall be made null and void and so this happened in the case of Henry.

Part B: Essay

Examining the damages which are punitive and the privy council has held that the power given to the damages which are punitive under the Act if privacy Act which does not fall within the compensation requirement anywhere.

In the case of Blomely v. Ryan (1954) 99 CLR 362 the court held that drinking alcohol to an extent for any individual can be harmful, not only to the health but also to the upcoming future. Furthermore, in the case of Louth v. Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 the court held that the entire case becomes null and void because any contract made by the person who is intoxicant or drugged is not a liable for any legal contract as per the common law of equity of Australia. Aggravated Damages are available for the breach of exclusive equitable causes of action as all the decisions made on such damages shall be marked as punitive and violative according to the law. As explained in the case of Commercial Bank of Australia v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, it was held that the person who was intoxicant made the contract, therefore, the contract made in certain condition of intoxication shall be void and not valid. further, the statement above is relevant for the jurisdiction of equity to actually award compensation to the parties who have suffered through these damages and punitive circumstances.

The history of the jurisdiction of equity has been established by providing the damages for the act of innocence and not getting involved in the action which are punitive and actions which are punishable by the Act. Therefore, aggravated damages are the damages which have been established to the people who commit crime and do not actually face the problem and do not follow the law, such principle binds the people and makes them follow every rules and regulation which is possible from the end of law. The damages should be made available for the breach of the exclusively equitably causes of actions in the law.

References for Equity and Trust Act

Cases

Blomely v. Ryan (1954) 99 CLR 362

Commercial Bank of Australia v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447

Louth v. Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621

Kakavas v. Crown Melbourn Ltd. (2013) HCA 25

Legislation

Common Law

Equity and trust Act

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help