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

Business law - Case Study Example 6 (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 Civil 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 short account of the commercial background of the case, and key aspects/clauses of the standardized contract in dispute between the parties. The Federal Court of Australia issued its judgement in the case of Steggles Limited v Yarrabee Chicken Company Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 91 under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) of contractual dispute. The joint judgement made by Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ,  agreed that appeal sh ould be duly allowed to Yarrabee (applicant) as against Steggles (plaintiff). 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 breach 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 particular contractual term of â€Å"extra Shed capacity† which could have implied the assistance to be rendered by Steggles in terms of increased physical capacity to grow more birds or through 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 bet ween Yarrabee and Steggles. It was under this particular clause of the contract that Steggles was considered to be liable to offer ‘any extra shed capacity’ to the Growers in preference to any other third party 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 â€Å"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 e ntered between the Growers and Steggles. In this particular context, Steggles was found to breach the contract against the terms illustrated under cl 7.4 (a) of the contract as the judges concluded that â€Å"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,