Reference no: EM131850282 , Length: word count:2000

Question -

Milco and Cami Durand, a couple, are recent French immigrants who arrived in Australia in May 2015. Milco suffers from severe migraines due to a motorcycle accident that occurred in France a year ago. Prior to the accident, the couple both worked as chefs at a large hotel in Paris however, Milco was unable to continue working full-time due to his health condition. The couple therefore decided that a change of lifestyle was required and relocated to Australia with the hope of running their own hospitality-related business. In doing so, they felt that as they would be in charge of the business, there would be a degree of flexibility in the number of hours in which Milco would be required to work. Both Milco and Cami have very limited English communication skills. Furthermore, they have no experience in running a business.

The couple decides to move to Carina, a suburb in Brisbane. Whilst out on an evening walk, the couple notices a sign in front of a bakery along Old Cleveland Road, Carina, indicating that the business was for sale. After making enquiries, Milco and Cami signed the contract for the purchase of the business on the 11 December 2017.

A condition of the contract was a seven day cooling-off period during which the couple were able to elect to no longer proceed with the purchase. The next day the couple read from an advertisement in the Eastside Times that the Brisbane City Council had plans to build a light rail line through Carina. However, there was no mention in the article as to the proposed route of the line. They were concerned that if the light rail was to be constructed along Old Cleveland Road, the construction may obstruct access and the view of the shop thereby reducing the number of customers and rendering the purchase of the business unprofitable.

On the 12 December 2017, the couple took advantage of the cooling- off period to investigate whether or not the light rail would indeed be constructed down Old Cleveland Road. They thoroughly searched the Brisbane City Council website and found no information regarding the light rail route except a notice stating that detailed information regarding the proposed route could be obtained in writing from the council. The couple then emailed the Brisbane City Council Town Planning Department for information regarding the planned route of the light rail and asked specifically whether it would traverse Old Cleveland Road, Carina at the location of the bakery. In making the request, they stressed that they were in the process of purchasing a business along Old Cleveland Road and unobstructed access was crucial in determining whether it was a viable investment.

On the 14 December 2017, the Brisbane City Council sent a letter and attached certificate, in the mail, indicating that the light rail route would not traverse Old Cleveland Road. Both documents were signed by a Senior Planning Officer from the council. The cover letter indicated that blocking of access to the bakery by the council would be extremely unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. In coming to this decision, the Senior Planning Officer relied upon the earlier decision of the Council Planning Committee made two months ago, that the route would pass along Stanley Road, several blocks to the north. The Senior Planning Officer however, failed to consider a later decision made by the same committee a month ago, diverting the route south to Old Cleveland Road. As a matter of practice within the Council, all Planning Committee decisions are distributed to all planning officers. However, the officer concerned did not read the second decision in full as he believed the route had already been decided. These committee decisions are not published online or in a printed form. In light of the information found on the certificate and the cover letter, Milco and Cami proceeded with the purchase, occupation and operation of the bakery.

One month later the couple decided to purchase additional ovens as they found that they were unable to produce enough croissants to keep up with customer demand. They visited the showroom of King of Ovens which sell both new and second-hand ovens. The couple indicated to a representative, Steve, that they needed to purchase two further ovens in reliable order to bake croissants. It was apparent to Steve that the couple did not speak English well; that they were not experienced in the business side of running a bakery, and that Milco was in pain due to a health condition. Steve saw this as a great opportunity to sell two faulty ovens that the store had been attempting to sell for several months. Steve sold the ovens to Milco and Cami for $3000 each, but did not mention that they were faulty. Milco and Cami purchased the ovens and in doing so, signed a 20 page document which indicated that the purchasers acknowledged that the ovens may or may not be in working order. In fact, the ovens were faulty which meant that the Bakery did not produce a sufficient quantity of croissants to keep up with demand.

Three months later, to their surprise, construction of the light rail commenced along Old Cleveland Road. As a result customers were unable to access the Bakery during standard business hours when construction was taking place. The couple have estimated that their bakery turnover has declined from an annual turnover of $700,000 prior to construction to $200,000 as the bakery's customers could only access the bakery after construction had ceased for the day.

PART A: Advise Milco and Cami whether they are able to take action against the Brisbane City Council for Negligent Misstatement. Consider both the common law and the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in your answer.

PART B: Advise if King of Ovens may be liable for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth).

Student answers to the hypothetical question must be written under the framework of -Issue, Law, Application and Conclusion (ILAC).

The assignment question covers the law of contract.

Relevant Law: DO NOT write detailed explanation of the legal rules under the "Law" heading. Please provide only the 'names of case law' under ''Law", that will be referred to in the 'application of law' part of your answer.

This is the most important part of your answer:

Application of Law to the Facts: Please refer to the case names and / or sections of legislation that you have identified, when you write the application of law (legal rules) to the facts or arguments of the question.

Conclusion: You only need one 'conclusion' at the end of each question.