duction: An agent called Star and Extra ('S&E') is attempting to sue Martina, who is a young opera singer and signed a 5 year-contract with them, for their loss commission of the job in Australia. In order to give Martina a good advice in her case, it is necessary to analyst some legal issues that Martina would have to encounter. Therefore, this essay will consider two possible two legal issues by breaking given case into two separate key facts, key issues with some relevant case law or legal principles applied and tentative conclusions to get a better understanding about issues before making comments for Martina. In particular, this analysis will cover the breach of contract, representations, causation and remoteness which are considered as the main legal principles to deal with Martina's case. The first legal issue raised in Martina's case is based on the facts that: Martina signed a contract in 5 years with 'S&E' company and was required to collaborate only with them until the end of year five. Before signing the contract, 'S&E' also agreed in verbal with Martina that they would limit the opera singing as she wanted to try other types of music but it is indicated that she only sings opera after signing the contract. The dispute occurs in the first 2 years when they recognized that Martina accepted to sing for Russian company without their permission. The possible issue is the breach of contract of Martina. In this situation, under a term in the contract which indicates that 'Martina would obtain all work through 'S&E' and would not sing for any other agency until the 5 years elapsed', what Martina did is work directly with Russian company and sing for them at a party. It proves that Martina failed to perform her work with S&E. This is relevant to principle of breach terms of the contract (p6-050). It is also similar to the case of Gumland Property Holdings Pty Limited v Duffy Bros Fruit Market Pty Limited with an agreement between parties that 'paying the rent and outgoings was a condition of the contract'. In regard to this, the lessor was enable to terminate the rent of the tenant when they lose to make payment. Both of the cases did not comply with terms of the contract, thus, they are both sued for the loss. However, another detail which is worth noticing is that owner of S&E verbally agreed with Martina about letting her expand singing field. The relevant legal principle to this is representations which 'made by one party before or at the time of making a contract to induce an offeree to enter in to the contract' (...) and importantly 'they do not form part of the contract and are not actionable in contract law'. This is expressly demonstrated through the case law of Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854). According to this case, Hopkins sued Tanqueray who sold his horse to him because he figured out that the previous words that Tanqueray told him about the horse in the day before auction is completely not correct. The similarity of Hopkins and Martina's case is that there is no warranty for the statement made. In particular, Hopkins entirely replies on the Tanqueray's words and decide to buy the horse. After buy the horse which did not meet his requirement, the statement of Tanqueray means a representation, not warranty. Thus, it is not included in the contract's term, leading to be unenforceable by the court. In the same situation applied for Martina, in order to get her agreement to enter into the contract, the owner of S&E agreed her suggestion but no warranty. As a result, she cannot use the owner's statement to discharge that the owner also breaches the contract. Conclusion for the first legal issue: Although there is one detail that can probably prove that the owner of S&E breaches the contract first, it is not taken into action in front of the court according to the representation principle (...). Therefore, after discussion between opportunities that Martina may confront, it is indicated that Martina breached the contract with 'S&E' company based on the terms of the contract (...). This entitles 'S&E' company to sue for damages because of the breach which leads us to the second legal issue. The second legal issue based on the fact that: Martina refused a job in Australia to sing for Oligarch's party, resulting in the loss of commission for 'S&E' company. Then, this company sued Martina for the damages and asked her to pay a commission for her work in Russia. Although Martina induced damages for company, they did not do anything to mitigate the damages. With respect of this fact, the second legal issue is whether Martina has to incur the loss of company and pay them a commission of her Russian work. First of all, referring to five steps in determining an award of damages, there was a breach of contract between Martina and 'S&E' company as shown in the first legal issue. As a result, a principle of causation can be brought out in this situation and is considered whether there is a loss of injured party. In term of causation which is 'the loss or damage that the plaintiff has suffered was caused by the defendant's breach of contract (...), 'S&E' lose money on the Australian job as Martina was absent in the performance without notice. Under the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854), the carrier was late in sending the crankshaft to the manufacturer for the negligence of the carriers. Hadley who is mill owner had to take a loss of profit because there is no crankshaft to proceed the operation of manufacturer. Hadley attempted to sue carrier to cover the loss of profit. Finally, the court decided that carriers did not have to take responsibility to incur the loss. This case is an excellent demonstration for Martina's case. The similarity between these cases is that the consequence of breaching the contract induced from defender (Martina and the carrier) is too remote (...). Applying this case in the situation of Martina, paying commission of her Russian work is a remote claim as it is not a direct reason caused by the breach of contract. Hence, Martina has no reason to pay her commission earned from the work in Russia for the company. In addition to that, the fact that 'S&E' wanted to sue her for the loss of commission on the job in Australia (..) is related to the first rule under the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854). This first rule is mainly about whether the loss or damage is the consequence of breaching contract. Particularly, a case of Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd is also a good illustration in relation to the second legal issue of Martina. The case is about P- a laundry and dry cleaning company and D who sells a boiler. P made an agreement with D to buy boiler and D was noticed that he needed to deliver the boiler in June. However, he delayed to deliver until November with no reason, which makes P lose his profit. Finally, the court claimed that P was entitled to receive the loss of normal profits expected to have if there was the boiler. According to this case, it is quite similar to Martina' case, it is because Martina also refused to comply with the term in contract law, was sued by juried party and was claimed to pay the loss of commission Hence, it is probable to apply the court's judgement of this case for Martina's case. In particular, Martina would have to pay for the loss of commission for the juried party as she caused a loss when she did not perform in Australia. Despite the action of breaching the contract which led Martina ought to pay for the loss of 'S&E', it still cannot come to the end. It is because the fact notices that 'S&E' did nothing to mitigate their loss of the company when they found Martina was not present at the performance. As based on the relevant law principle about mitigation of damages (...), the juried party needs to take action to reduce the loss of damages if the loss is avoidable. If not, the juried party was not be recovered all the amount of loss by the defendant. The specific case of Payzu v Saunders (...) could be used to analyse the mitigation in the case of Martina due to the similarity between them. In the agreement with seller and buyer on widgets, buyer was late in paying, leading to termination contract indicated by seller. But then, seller wanted to continue the contract, the buyer did not agree and waited until the market price of products rose and then sued the seller for their loss of profits. In this case, the court did not consider the loss of profits depriving from the defendant whereas buyer can mitigate the cost by accepting the offer of the defendant. It is the same with the fact from Martina's case, while 'S&E can absolutely minimize the loss of commission by replacing another singer to perform, they chose to do nothing. Therefore, it is concluded that the amount of commission loss on the job in Australia would not be fully covered by Martina. Conclusion for the second legal issue While Martina did not have duty to pay her commission that she received from her Russian work thanks to the principle of remoteness (...), she would have to cover the loss of commission of her work in Australia due to her breach of contract with company. However, at the same time, the company ignored to reduce the loss, leading to a decrease in the amount of recover that the company expected to get, which proved by the mitigation principle in the contract law. In conclusion, both parties had to share the loss of commission for the work in Australia. TABL 1710 BUSINESS AND THE LAW MAJOR ASSIGNMENT: SEMESTER 1, 2017 Worth 20 marks - 16 for the answer + 4 for research and presentation Total length: 1800 words (NO +10% margin) Due date: Monday 10 April 2017, by 5pm (SUBMISSION VIA TURNITIN ONLY - see Moodle and also see Course Outline at para 5.3 for Submission Procedure) Refer to relevant case law and legal principles. Apply the Common/Case Law only. Do not apply the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, or any other legislation. Martina, a young opera singer signed a 5 year contract with an agency called Stars & Extras ('S & E'). The contract stated she would obtain all of her singing work through S & E and would not sing for any other agency until the 5 years elapsed. During their negotiations Martina had told the owner of S & E (who was her father) that she did not want to sing opera for the rest of her life, she wanted to branch out into other types of singing. The owner agreed, verbally, to restrict the contract to opera singing but this was not written in the contract. Martina secured paid work through S & E singing in operas for the first 2 years. She did not perform any other singing work during this time. In the third year of the contract Martina accepted an invitation to go to Russia to perform for a weekend at an oligarch's birthday party. The invitation came through a Russian company that wanted to deal direct with Martina, not through S & E. All 'waiters' and 'waitresses' at the oligarch's party had a performing skill. During the dinner, as well as serving meals and drinks, the waiters and waitresses would sometimes break into song, or juggle, or dance, depending on their skills. Martina sang an aria from the Russian opera Aleko and Russian folk songs that reminded the oligarch of his childhood. S & E found out about Martina's singing engagement at this party in Russia because in order to go there she had to decline a job in Australia. S & E claims Martina must pay them a commission for her Russian work. S & E also threaten to sue her for their loss of commission on the job in Australia. They had made no attempt to find another opera singer to replace Martina when they found she was not available for that job. Identify any TWO (2) of the legal issues confronting Martina and advise her on them. Marking criteria The marker will be evaluating your assignments based on the following criteria: Assignment worth 20 marks HD Identified 2 legal issues, applied legal rules correctly and proposed well supported, credible, tentative conclusions. Wellstructured, referenced and superior discussion of issues raised in the question. (16 possible marks) Demonstrated good research skills beyond course notes and textbook Cited cases, legislation and other material correctly using legal citation method, not Harvard method. (4 possible marks) D Identified 2 legal issues and applied most of the applicable legal rules Wellstructured, referenced and good discussion of issues raised in the question (13.5 possible marks) % >85 7584 Demonstrated good research skills beyond course notes and textbook Cited cases, legislation and other material correctly (3.5 possible marks) CR Identified 2 legal issues Provided accurate application of some but not all relevant legal rules Adequately supported tentative conclusions Reasonable structure (11.5 possible marks) Applied most of the legal rules but didn't do extra research Referencing good but errors made e.g. not giving full case and legislation reference (3 possible marks) 6574 P Identified at least 1 legal issue Identified and applied some of the legal rules. Weakly justified or articulated tentative conclusions (10 possible marks) Relied solely on lecture materials and text book Poor referencing and structure (2.5 possible marks) Didn't correctly identify 1 or 2 legal issues, the relevant rules and did not apply the rules to the facts Discussion poorly structured. No introduction and reasoning given or failed to arrive at supported tentative conclusion (7.5 possible marks) Did not follow Written Submission Guidelines in Course Outline Plagiarised (2 possible marks) 5064 FL <50