Part A (1000 words)
Question 1 Analyse the law
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Church of SA:
*Jones V Padavattan,
* Todd V Nicol
*Rose & Frank V Crampton case ….
---What is the legal rule?
Question 2 apply the law and conclude whether Gayle will be successful in the case. Use IRAC method.
--Intention to create element 4.
--The case is not legally binding contract nor a breach of contract. Clearly it is only a casual agreement not a contract.
Here, the case study tells us that…
In conclusion, it is clear that there is NOT a binding contract between Mark and Gayle because ---------. As a result, I would not recommend Gayle sue Mark for breach …. Because
Part B (1000 words)
Question 3 – Promisory Esptopel (Case of Waltons Stores V Maher)
According to the case of Walton v Maher, Promisory Estopel is an equitable remedy which applies when -----
EXPLAIN THE LAW ONLY --- DO NOT REFER TO AAA PTY AND BBB PTYLD)
Case example -- Giumelli v Giumelli case
Question 4 – Application