Introduction:

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