Order Description

 

Question 1
Kelly is a recent graduate from Le Cordon Bleu, and she decides to open her own coffee house with her mother as a partner. She purchased an old coffee house. In order to improve the coffee house image and hopefully her business, she decides to give the coffee house ‘a lift’. Accordingly she contacts GG, a decorator and interior designer. GG visits Kelly’s premises and after inspecting the interior, he tells to her that she would be better to do everything ‘in one go’. It is agreed that the coffee house will be painted and new furniture will be purchased. GG tells Kelly that he will take care of everything. Kelly replies: ‘Please do it right. This is important for my business. I don’t want second-rate workmanship. GG says: ‘You can rest assured this will never happen. I only choose the best of everything. Besides, I always guarantee my work’.

The parties subsequently enter into a written contract, which Kelly glances at briefly, and signs. The contract provides that the work is to be done for $ 100,000. Upon completion of the work, Kelly visits the coffee house for an inspection. To her horror, she notices that the paint, which is already beginning to peel, is obviously of inferior quality and that the low quality furniture covered with cheap cloth. She consults the contract which she signed and notices a clause which provides that no guarantee is given for the quality of any work undertaken. Kelly consults another interior decorator and is advised that it will cist a further $100,000 to re-paint and replace the furniture. To make the situation worse, her mother found out what had happened and demands her money back.

Kelly seeks your help. Advise Kelly as to the legal grounds which may be available to her and which may form the basis of an action against GG. Also advise what Kelly can do about her mother’s demands. Indicate Kelly the likelihood of success or otherwise with respect to each. Give detailed reasons for your advice.
Note: No discussion is required of any statutory provisions concerning implied terms. (15 marks)

Question 2

Bennie’s fire is a restaurant in Adelaide famous for its fabulous desserts. Fire bomb is its most popular sweet with its meringue covered ice cream doused all over in brandy liqueur and served with the lights turned down low while the chef flames it up. The restaurant owner, Benny, has given his 10 employees strict instructions on fire safety in the preparations and presentation of this and other flaming desserts and drinks in conformity with the OHS regulations relevant to restaurants and cafes. These regulations recommend that alcohol should never be added to a pan or burner and that the cook should always use long fireplace matches in contact with flammable substances.

Cyrill has been a part time chef at the Bennie’s fire for nearly two years. Last Saturday night, Cyrill was ridiculously busy preparing one Fire bomb after another. Finally he used up the last of the matches in the kitchen and all of the usual brandy liqueur. Undeterred, Cyrill improvised. Being a smoker, he had a cigarette lighter in his jacket pocket and he also managed to find sine rum, which he knew, was also a highly flammable spirit.

He received a request to flame up the dessert at the table of a special birthday guest, Ruby, whose hair colour matched her name, He put the Fire bomb in the middle of the table, drenched it in the rum and using his lighter, set fire to the alcohol. With an almighty roar, the dessert exploded in flams and the blast hit Cyrill on the face and arms. The blast also set fire to Ruby’s hair as she leaned forward in anticipation of the spectacle.

Cyrill and Ruby were taken to hospital for treatment. The doctors have indicated that Cyrill will need several months of rehabilitation following some reconstructive surgery to his face and skin grafts on his arms. Ruby has lost most of her hair and will need to wear a wig for the time being.

Benny is furious over the incident and the bad publicity it has generated for his restaurant. He has issued Cyrill with a dismissal notice effective immediately citing his violation of the fire safety regulations as his reason for sacking him. He has also told Cyrill that he was on a frolic of his own and should never set fire to the Fire bomb at Ruby’s table. Cyrill believes he has been treated unfairly and harshly in the circumstances and that not only should he be reinstated immediately but that he is entitled to receive his weekly wage while he is away from work. In the past, on special occasions Cyrill has flamed up desserts at patrons’ tables as part of his duties as a chef. With respect to her injury, Ruby is considering bringing an action against Cyrill for common law negligence.

Advise each of the parties of the merits of their claims and/or defences. (15 marks)