Masters V Cameron Law Case Study



Task: Compare the case of Masters v Cameron together with Baulkham Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd. Discuss.


In many cases, the parties specifying the contract terms may intend to record the terms they have agreed to, at which point it would turn into a binding written agreement. In such a circumstance, the main terms used to distinguish such contracts are defined as "subject to contract." The question of whether or not the existing agreement is valid arises when such an agreement has been established and, for whatever reason, one of its participants says that it will not be engaging into a valid agreement with the rival before entering into a written obligation. Participants should consider whether the parties were willing to enter into a legally binding contract when deciding if there is a legally enforceable agreement in this type of situation. Masters v. Cameron can be cited as a key source in this area of contract law. The court has provided certain choices and essential principles that might be used in this case to clarify whether the participants expect to be held legally bound by the 

GR Securities Pty Ltd v. Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986):

In this instance, the court made it clear that, regardless of the type of contractual arrangement under consideration, it is crucial to ascertain the participants' goals and the necessity of figuring out their motivations. The court found that in this particular case, it was not possible to determine the participants' intentions from a single document, but rather from the language and phrasing used in numerous emails and letters sent between their claimants. The court then examined the settlement between the parties (e-mail exchange). Three questions are raised in this litigation as a result of this. One, if the settlement procedure had resulted in a consensus among the two parties. If so, if the terms of the agreement may be formalised into a binding contract. If that is likewise the case, the third point that must be addressed is whether or not the two parties intended to enter into a contract that would make the terms of their agreement enforceable.

It would be clear if it was reasonable to take into consideration the subsequent dialogue between the two entities and whether this talk was coherent with a binding contract if the participants' exchange of emails could be regarded as a legally enforceable agreement (Peden, Carter & Tolhurst,2004). On the basis of these arguments, the court determined that the exchange of emails between the claimants and the associated papers resulted in any instantly enforceable agreement to settle the dispute. The court has further asserted that the settlement did not take the form that was anticipated to be made plain in the accompanying structured documents.

Cameron vs. Masters: In this case, the court was asked to determine whether the document outlining the terms of the sale of the property should be regarded as a contract or only an understanding of how the parties would perform the transaction. One of the three forms indicated below may represent a signed contract, the court noted in its decision. First, all of the negotiated bond standings have been agreed upon by the participants, and it is expected that the parties would be held accountable for fast fulfilment of the standings. Additionally, they suggested that the provisions be restated in a new contract in a way that is extra precise and clear while maintaining their original terms. Furthermore, the parties should have agreed to all of the provisions of the agreement, but instead they made any of them subject to execution of a formal instrument. In the third situation, unless a written agreement has been signed by all parties, the participants' goal may not be achieved at all. The court found that in the first two instances, the parties were required by law to create a formal contract and then fulfil their contractual responsibilities. It will be the case if the contract contains all the details necessary for its broadness and aim, and if the parties creating the legally binding agreement are unable to change the terms on which they have already agreed (Collins, 2017). However, in the third form of agreement, the parties did not intend to have a legal repercussion.