Essay --

The leader of the new political party named â€Å"The Blue Party† organise an open air rally is Sydney. He contract John to provide catering facilities for $5000 and request NSW police authority to provide additional protection for $3000. On the other hand, Hanson who is a committed supporter of Paul agrees to fly an aircraft over the rally for free of charge and after the rally Paul agrees to reimburse him with the full payment. Ian, who is a prominent sympathiser of Paul’s political program, writes Paul saying that he will provide $10000. However at the end of the rally he refuses to pay Paul due to the dramatic decline of his profitability of the business. (A)Paul and John The defendant Paul entered into a contract with the plaintiff John who is a catering service provider for the rally. The plaintiff was to provide catering facilities to the rally. The price was $5000. Paul is determined that the rally should be successful and, at the last minute, he agrees to pay John ‘a bonus of $1,000 to ensure that things run smoothly. At the end the defendant Paul failed to pay the extra money. Issue: The issue is whether the plaintiff's (John) performance of its existing contractual duty to complete the catering service could amount to sufficient consideration for the promise of the additional payment. In Australia, the doctrine has developed beyond the restriction following the High Court’s decision. According to the case law of Walton Stores the following pre-conditions for promissory estoppel: i. Defendant (Paul) must make a promise of some kind. ii. Defendant (Paul) must also create of encourage an assumption on Plaintiffs (John) part that promise will be performed. iii. Plaintiff (John) must rely upon this to its detriment; and iv.... ...rt held that Thomas promises or warranties were not supported by consideration, since their contract had been concluded when the promises were made, and hence there was no consideration. Similarly, we can say that Paul’s promises to Hanson were not supported by consideration, since their contract had been concluded as soon as the rally ended. On the other side, Hanson was already bounded to Hanson to perform an existing contractual obligation of flying an aircraft on during the rally for free of charge. Therefore, Paul should not enforce to reimburse Hanson because there was no consideration given by the plaintiff for the promise to pay. (D) Paul v Ian: To succeed Paul’s political program, Ian who is a prominent sympathizer, promise to donate $10000 in writing. Due to sudden decline in business Ian was unable to donate the fund after the successful rally. Essay -- The leader of the new political party named â€Å"The Blue Party† organise an open air rally is Sydney. He contract John to provide catering facilities for $5000 and request NSW police authority to provide additional protection for $3000. On the other hand, Hanson who is a committed supporter of Paul agrees to fly an aircraft over the rally for free of charge and after the rally Paul agrees to reimburse him with the full payment. Ian, who is a prominent sympathiser of Paul’s political program, writes Paul saying that he will provide $10000. However at the end of the rally he refuses to pay Paul due to the dramatic decline of his profitability of the business. (A)Paul and John The defendant Paul entered into a contract with the plaintiff John who is a catering service provider for the rally. The plaintiff was to provide catering facilities to the rally. The price was $5000. Paul is determined that the rally should be successful and, at the last minute, he agrees to pay John ‘a bonus of $1,000 to ensure that things run smoothly. At the end the defendant Paul failed to pay the extra money. Issue: The issue is whether the plaintiff's (John) performance of its existing contractual duty to complete the catering service could amount to sufficient consideration for the promise of the additional payment. In Australia, the doctrine has developed beyond the restriction following the High Court’s decision. According to the case law of Walton Stores the following pre-conditions for promissory estoppel: i. Defendant (Paul) must make a promise of some kind. ii. Defendant (Paul) must also create of encourage an assumption on Plaintiffs (John) part that promise will be performed. iii. Plaintiff (John) must rely upon this to its detriment; and iv.... ...rt held that Thomas promises or warranties were not supported by consideration, since their contract had been concluded when the promises were made, and hence there was no consideration. Similarly, we can say that Paul’s promises to Hanson were not supported by consideration, since their contract had been concluded as soon as the rally ended. On the other side, Hanson was already bounded to Hanson to perform an existing contractual obligation of flying an aircraft on during the rally for free of charge. Therefore, Paul should not enforce to reimburse Hanson because there was no consideration given by the plaintiff for the promise to pay. (D) Paul v Ian: To succeed Paul’s political program, Ian who is a prominent sympathizer, promise to donate $10000 in writing. Due to sudden decline in business Ian was unable to donate the fund after the successful rally.