Legally enforceable between Super Fine Oils Ltd and Celeb Johnson

The agreements are reached by family members or spouses cannot be lawfully operated. The case is Balfour v Balfour. At the time that they travelled to England, Ms. Balfour unfortunately felt unwell then the doctor said she should stay in England until she recuperated. Meanwhile, Mr. Balfour promised to provide her ? 30 per month until she recovered. Later, due to the separation, Mr. Balfour stopped providing ? 30. Could Ms. Balfour claim for the promise? Since this agreement reached the domestic agreement, Mr. Balfour did not need to deal with the responsibility after the separation.

Therefore, the agreement cannot be established. In most situations, the agreements between spouses are non-valid contract. The case is Cohen v Cohen. Before they got married, Mr. Cohen had accepted to pay ? 100 for Ms. Cohen’s dress allowance per year. The amount of money was paid by four times per year. After divorcing, Mr. Cohen stopped paying for the allowance. Could the commitment be seen as an intention to establish a legitimate contract? The tribunal adjudicated that contract was not enforceable since the defendant had made the discussion before they got married and he did not need to take the responsibility afterward.

For some exceptional situations, the intention legally enforces if they provide enough evidences. Merritt v Merritt is the case. The defendant and plaintiff jointly owned a house. The parties divorced and there was a contract was in writing that if Ms. Merritt was done the mortgage payment of the house, Ms. Merritt later owned the house. However, when Ms. Merritt completed, he rejected to transfer the house. Had this contract been invalidated? The marriage had ended when Mr. Merritt moved out with his lover. As well as the agreement was in writing.

Therefore, the tribunal judged that the contract validated. The judges presumed that the contract is legally created by the intention in commercial or business transactions. Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise is the case. Esso Petroleum created a set of commemorative coin as a collective item to maximize their revenue. The automobilists who purchase four gallons of petroleum can get the coin. Unfortunately, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise stated that the coin should be subjected to purchase the tax because the coin was produced in measure for general sale.

Was there an intention by offering the coin for automobilists legally enforceable? The intention for promotion was lawfully enforceable as it reached a commercial promises and Esso should subject to purchase tax for the coin. The contracts which are related to charitable services can be implemented if they have relevant facts and evidences. In the case of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc, Ermogenous was invited to be a Head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia where he used to be served as archbishop for 23 years.

Initially, the community accepted to pay him the accumulated leaves but when Ermogenous completed his job, the community denied the payment. Had the contract of employment been lawfully established? The courts stated that the contract was legally conducted as the minister could benefit from monetary and economic benefit. The consideration can be an exchange of things, promises or money and it needs to be sufficient as well. Thomas v Thomas is the case. Following Mr. Thomas’s wish that Ms. Thomas could stay in his house until she passed away. After Mr. Thomas died, his executors allowed Ms.Thomas to stay in the house with the conditions were that she should pay  1 a year and keep the house in good condition.

Could the desire of her husband be seen as a consideration? The wish was not a consideration; however, the contract between Ms. Thomas and the executors consisted of the agreement to pay ? 1 and keep the house in good condition which was a sufficient consideration. The promise to finish the works or duties can be considered as the non-valid contract. In the case of Stylk v Myrick, at the half way point of the journey, there were two seamen quit the ship.

The captain undertook to give the remaining seamen bonus by dividing the salary of the two seamen who left. However, after the ship was sailed safely, the captain rejected to pay them the bonus. Could the remaining sailors receive the bonus based on the captain’s promise? The judges held that there was not a sufficient consideration since the initial contract mentioned that the seamen guaranteed to do anything in emergency cases. Unilateral contract occurs when one party promises to do something if the other party performs well in specific works.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co is the case. The product ‘smoke ball’ was made from some certain chemicals to avoid the influenza. To advertise their commodity, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company paid ? 100 for anyone who utilized the medicine and followed the instruction but still got the influenza. Although Carlill bought the medicine and then used them as instruction, she still got the influenza. Had the exchange been legally enforceable? The tribunal mentioned that the consideration in exchange was sufficient to make an enforceable contract since Carlill carried out instruction.

According to Lambiris and Griffin (2016), the agreement which is reached by two people living in a family relationship or friends will not be legally implemented. However, the agreement can be undertaken if the additional circumstances are given to demonstrate that the intention is legal. In this case, Celeb Johnson and Super Oil had had a good relation before the affair collapsed. Even though the two parties are friends, between them there was a contract that if Celeb joined that race, Super Oil would pay him a generous weekly payment in return.

This additional circumstance can indicate that there was an intention between the plaintiff and defendant; therefore, the agreement legally enforced. In addition, the two parties also reached the commercial context. Due to some comments, The Super Oil rejected to pay $350 000 to Celeb although he won the first prize. Given that there was an intention to illustrate that the prize included the monetary and economic benefits which plaintiff or defendant could benefit from. Last but not least, the promise in case can be considered as an exchange.

Since Celeb had done his responsibility in races as well as won the first prize, the Super Oil did not pay him any amount of money. Thus, the consideration in this case can be lawfully enforceable. To conclude, it tends to say that the contract between Super Oils Ltd and Celeb Johnson is legally enforceable. The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both Logan and Government of Western Australia. The courts presume that the vague or illusory promises are not seen as a valid contract.

In the case of Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth, the Commonwealth government sponsored an unspecific amount for Placer Development to import timber into Australia. After the first payment, the government stopped the sponsorship. Therefore, the Placer desired to claim the government for the payment. Had the government’s promise for the sponsorship been enforceable? The judges said that the sponsorship was meaningless if there is no specification of the amount and the promise in this case was considered as an illusory promise. Thus, the government’s promise had not been implemented.

Advertisements for goods and services are unlikely to be treated as offers since they are usually treated as “invitation to treat”. The case is Partridge v Crittenden. Partridge was the defendant who published an advertisement on magazine for the sale of bramble finches and hens with ? 25 per each. He was charged with unlawfully offering wild birds for sales. Was the advertisement interpreted as an offer for sales or an invitation to treat? Based on the courts’ presumption, the advertisement cannot be constituted an offer for sale; however, they viewed it as an invitation to treat.

This is because the advertisement is suitable for who are fascinated by the wild birds. An offer can be constituted when it makes to a particular person or the entire universe. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co is the case. The product ‘smoke ball’ was made from some certain chemicals to prevent the epidemic. To advertise their product, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company paid ? 100 for anyone who used the medicine and followed the instruction but still got the influenza. Although Carlill bought the medicine and then used them as instruction, she still caught the influenza.

Was the condition in the advertisement legally established an acceptance of offer? The courts adjudicated that this advertisement was a legally offer since it targeted to specific person who can adopt the offer. The telex communication refers to the instantaneous communication which is effective when and where the message is received. In the case of Brinkibon Ltd v Sthalwharenhandelsgesellschaft, the offeror was Brinkibon sued the offeree was Stahag due to the breach of contract. So as to purchase steel from Stahag, Brinkibon telexed an acceptance of a contract offer to Stahag.

Brinkibon claimed for the damages in contract in England but Stahag denied because they were not under British Jurisdiction. Could offeree claim for the breach of contract in England? The judges adjudicated that the acceptance was only effective where telexes was received in Stahag as telexes were sent by Brinkibon to Stahag. The courts said that the letter of acceptance is only effective when it is posted. Henthorn v Fraser is the case. Mr. Henthorn and Mr. Fraser had negotiated the purchase price of the house. The defendant sold the house with ? 750 and allowed 14 days for Henthorn to accept the offer.

Mr. Fraser revoked offer before acceptance was received. Was the contract cancelled before acceptance occurred? The acceptance had been sent by before the defendant withdrew the contract; therefore, the tribunal said that the offer by post is legally effective. Normally, the illusory promises will not be enforceable. However, in this case the promise was not illusory. The government offered a contract that will support $25 million to Logan to help the public houses in Fremantle complete by March 2018. The acceptance by fax or telex is only applied when it is received by the offeror.

The government also mentioned that the acceptance should be submitted by facsimile or mail by 5pm today. After receiving the offer for government, Logan sent the response immediately. Unfortunately, due to the lack of paper in fax machine at government department, Logan’s acceptance was received until 9am the next day. It was not Logan’s fault since he replied on the time that government had given. In closing, it leads to the conclusion that the agreement between Logan and Government of Western Australia is lawfully implemented since Logan had posted the acceptance of the offer by facsimile by 5pm.