BTF1010 Study Guide - Final Guide: The Moorcock, Oral Contract, Aust

• School: Monash University
• Department: Business - BTF
• Course: BTF1010
• Professor: Professor

Document Summary

Burger king corp v hungry jack"s pty ltd [(cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1005)] nswca (cid:1005)(cid:1012)(cid:1011) (pg 291) Facts: burger king (cid:894)bk(cid:895) is a us fi(cid:396)(cid:373) a(cid:374)d ga(cid:448)e hu(cid:374)g(cid:396)(cid:455) ja(cid:272)k(cid:859)s (hj) exclusive right to develop bj in australia, in return hj promised to open 4 outlets every year. Later bk wanted australian (cid:373)a(cid:396)ket fo(cid:396) itself so se(cid:272)(cid:396)etl(cid:455) sta(cid:396)ted dis(cid:272)ussio(cid:374)s (cid:449)ith shell. Decision: the court decided that bk breached its implied obligation of good faith: reg glass pty ltd v rivers locking systems pty ltd (1968) 120 clr 516 (pg 292) Facts: reg glass hired rivers to supply and fit a particular steel-sheeted door and locking s(cid:455)ste(cid:373) i(cid:374) his shop. I(cid:448)e(cid:396)s fitted the door on the existing wooden door frame. Burglars broke in by forcing the door from the frame. Decision: this was a contract for work and materials. There was an implied term that the doo(cid:396) (cid:449)ould (cid:271)e (cid:858)(cid:396)easo(cid:374)a(cid:271)le fit to keep (cid:449)ould-be breakers out of the shop(cid:859).