Junghoon Lee
New member
since there's no answer sheet, I'd like to ask you guys' opinion.
the answers I made is below
1) An agreement rendered void by statute or common law is always void ab initio T
2) An agreement deemed illegal at its inception is totally void T
3) Where the purpose of the statute is to protect the public, and the statute expressly or impliedly prohibits the making of the agreement itself, the contract will be void. F
4) Contracts that are binding in honour only but attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are valid F
5) Contracts in restraint of trade are regarded as prima facie void F
6) An employer can enforce a restraint of trade clause, in a contract of employment with an employee, which is not an attempt to limit competition. T
7) The reason that restraints of trade in a sale of a business are generally held to be valid is because the parties are dealing on a more equal basis. F
8) If a restraint of trade clause in a contact of employment is harsh or unfair, the court may hold there was no genuine agreement between the parties and strike it down. T
9) Many restraint of trade actions rely on Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) because the courts have greater powers to vary or rectify a contact than under common law. F
1) Only the ACT can make authorizations F
2) Decisions of the ACCC can only be appealed to the Federal court. F
3) Secondary boycotts are prohibited outright under s 45D T
4) A financial institution who tells customers that they must take out insurance with a specified insurer is engaged in exclusive dealing, which is prohibited under s47(6) T
5) A supplier who supplies goods to a retailer is allowed to recommend a selling price for those goods
6) Agreements that have the effect of substantially lessening competition, such as market sharing agreements, are prohibited outright
7) Where a seller supplies goods on condition hta the buyer will not re supply them on to a third party may amount to a situation of exclusive dealing under s47.
8) If there is strong import competition, a proposed merger is unlikely to be successfully challenged under s 50.
9) Notification provides interim protection to parties engaged in exclusive dealing
10) Only corporations can be liable for breaches of the Trade Practice Act
thanks everyone.
the answers I made is below
1) An agreement rendered void by statute or common law is always void ab initio T
2) An agreement deemed illegal at its inception is totally void T
3) Where the purpose of the statute is to protect the public, and the statute expressly or impliedly prohibits the making of the agreement itself, the contract will be void. F
4) Contracts that are binding in honour only but attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are valid F
5) Contracts in restraint of trade are regarded as prima facie void F
6) An employer can enforce a restraint of trade clause, in a contract of employment with an employee, which is not an attempt to limit competition. T
7) The reason that restraints of trade in a sale of a business are generally held to be valid is because the parties are dealing on a more equal basis. F
8) If a restraint of trade clause in a contact of employment is harsh or unfair, the court may hold there was no genuine agreement between the parties and strike it down. T
9) Many restraint of trade actions rely on Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) because the courts have greater powers to vary or rectify a contact than under common law. F
1) Only the ACT can make authorizations F
2) Decisions of the ACCC can only be appealed to the Federal court. F
3) Secondary boycotts are prohibited outright under s 45D T
4) A financial institution who tells customers that they must take out insurance with a specified insurer is engaged in exclusive dealing, which is prohibited under s47(6) T
5) A supplier who supplies goods to a retailer is allowed to recommend a selling price for those goods
6) Agreements that have the effect of substantially lessening competition, such as market sharing agreements, are prohibited outright
7) Where a seller supplies goods on condition hta the buyer will not re supply them on to a third party may amount to a situation of exclusive dealing under s47.
8) If there is strong import competition, a proposed merger is unlikely to be successfully challenged under s 50.
9) Notification provides interim protection to parties engaged in exclusive dealing
10) Only corporations can be liable for breaches of the Trade Practice Act
thanks everyone.