Commercial and corporation law analysis

Commercial and Corporation Law Analysis

Explain the commercial and corporate law.

Answer:

Introduction:

Critical Analysis:

1^st Case Analysis: Waltons Stores Interstate Ltd v Maher[4]

In the case of Barnes v. Alderton[6], a dispute between sister and brother over a property in NSW arose. According to the defendant, at the time when they purchased the property he was 21 while his sister was 15. He further stated that since his father was working on the central coast and mother in Sydney, the family was divided. However, the only people who looked after the property were the defendant and his father. As per the memory of the defendant, the dues of the property were paid from their joint account. The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppels cannot assist a person who hears a statement from someone who says that they are intending to make the hearer owner of the property. Such statement cannot be enforced as the person did not rely on the promise that was made to him. Hence, in this case the Court rejected the applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel[7].

The case laws mentioned above are examples that show us that a wide range of discretionary powers are vested in the hands of the Courts to decide cases where there is ambiguity of application of contract law and rules[8]. In such cases, equity has provided justice to people and common law remedies were undermined. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a defined and well stated doctrine however; there may be situations where in the Courts may decide cases going beyond the scope of the wordings of the doctrine. In the case laws mentioned above the Judges depended on the facts and circumstances of the case and had gone beyond common law jurisdictions.

2nd Case Analysis: Commercial Bank v Amadio[9]

The most important characteristic of equitable relief is that it is considers it to be extraordinary and not ordinary. The first result of this axiom is that equitable relief is considered as a matter of right and not of discretion. Hence, a party who relies on equitable relief cannot demand it as a matter of right but as a matter of discretion. This is what the commentators meant when they said that denying equitable relief is the discretion of the Court. They did not mean that the Court can grant equitable relief in all scenarios rather it meant that parties who place their cases as part of equitable relief are not automatically authorized to it[15]. Parties cannot demand equitable relief as a matter of their right, however, they may request for the same.

Hence, with this we may now come up with the question, as to what relation does equity have with discretion? Discretion does not only mean personal choice of Judges, it may mean something more than just the applicability of personal conscience of Judges. In the equitable sense, discretion may mean “principle discretion” as opposed to unbridled discretion. Principle discretion is the guiding rule for any Judge to grant equitable relief, depending on the facts and scenarios of the case. Though Courts are regarded as court of good conduct and conscience, they may not grant equitable relief in the absence of a statutory provision or established precedent[16].