1.Advise Ronald as to his rights against Paula under common law.
2.Advise Ronald as to his rights against Paula under the Australian Consumer Law.
3.Advise Natalia whether she can successfully sue Marion under contract law principles, using relevant case law to back up your arguments.
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Ronald has claimed his rights against Paula under the common law of contract or not.
The min subject matter of the case is based on certain principle of the contract law. Contract is a legal agreement where certain terms and conditions are included and the parties are bind by the terms. According to the general rules of contract, if a party has entered into a contract by misrepresenting any facts and obtaining the signature of the other party; the affected party can bring an action against the alleged party. Further, the verbal statements have certain importance where the validity of the written agreement based on those statements. This principle has been established in De Lasalle v Guildford. This rule is known parole evidence rule. It has further been made in the Van Den Esschert v Chappell that an oral agreement is also form part of a written agreement in case the main intention of the contract has been laid in the oral agreement and the same has not been mentioned in the written contract. In Oscar Chess v William  1 WLR 370, it has been mentioned by the court that when in a contract, a representee has made false statement regarding a thing and the buyer has bought the thing innocently, the statement of the representee will be known as representation. In case of any false statement, the affected party can make action for false statements. Apart from this, where the terms of the contract are unfair and any party take undue advantage from the contract, the nature of the contract will be suffer from unconscionableness and the affected party can the contract.
In this present case, it has been observed that Ronald buys antique things but has no knowledge regarding the verification of the real antique piece. He had seen a desk in the shop of Paula and stated that he will buy the desk if it was 120 years old. Paula had assured him that the age of the desk is more than 120 years and as Ronald could not verify the reality of the statements, he had bought the desk on the statement made by Paula. A contract has been entered in between them where all these verbal implications had not been mentioned. In the later stage, it has been observed that the desk was not 120 years old and Ronald has to suffer huge loss. According to the parole evidence rule, it can be stated that Paula is liable to maintain all the essentiality of the verbal agreements and in case of any failure, she has to compensate Ronald. In addition, it can be stated that Ronald has been victimised under the misrepresentation.
It is therefore advised to Ronald that he can claim compensation from Paula and challenge the validity of the contract.
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Ronald has any rights against Paula under Australian Consumer Law or not.