"Problem 1\r\n\r\nEmma is a university student who works as a gardener on weekends for extra income. On Wednesday Emma agrees to mow Bill's front and back yard on Saturday morning for $50. On Friday night she rings Bill and tells him that she has had a recurrence of a bad back and she isn't sure she will be able to mow his yard. Bill is desperate to get the job done because he is holding a big garden party on Saturday afternoon so promises to pay Emma an additional $S70 if she will do the job. Emma decides that the money is too good to pass up so she agrees to undertake the mowing. After completing the job Bill hands Emma S50 telling her that that was all he was contractually required to pay.\r\n\r\na) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider?\r\nb) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem?\r\nc) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?\r\nd) Based on this information, if Emma sues Bill for breach of contract, will she win in court? What is your answer - yes? or no? Explain your answer.\r\n\r\nProblem 2\r\n\r\nPolice Constable Smith was on his daily foot patrol when he heard on a shop radio that a man had robbed Mrs Verity Rich of her diamond rings worth 550,000. The radio report went on to say that a reward of 51,000 was being offered to whoever helped her get her rings back Soon afterwards Rex saw someone acting suspiciously and led PC Smith to the man who had robbed Mrs Rich. PC Smith arrested the thief and took possession of the jewellery. Mrs Rich, although delighted with the return of her jewellery, refused to pay the reward to PC Smith.\r\n\r\na) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider?\r\nb) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem?\r\nc) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?\r\nd) Based on this information, if PC Smith sues Mrs Rich for the reward, will he win in court? What is your answer - yes? or no? Explain your answer. (Ignore all areas e.g. employment law - just consider contract law)\r\n\r\nProblem 3\r\n\r\nMary and her husband Tim are Australian citizens who live in the USA because Tim is a manager of a business there. Mary hates living in the USA so Tim agrees that she should return to their home in Australia and he will provide her with a weekly allowance of $500. Mary returns to Australia but after three months Tim stops paying her the allowance. One year later she divorces Tim and sues him for all the payments he promised to pay her but did not.\r\n\r\na) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider?\r\nb) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem?\r\nc) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?\r\nd) Based on this information, if Mary sues Tim for breach of contract (common law), will she win in court? What is your answer - yes? or no? Explain your answer.\r\n\r\nProblem 4\r\nGuy had been offered a ticket to the NRL Grand Final at the Olympic Stadium. As Guy approached the stadium, he joined a long line of traffic edging its way slowly towards the car parking area. When Guy's car reached the entrance to the car park he paid a parking fee of 130 and was handed parking ticket containing information on each side as follows:\r\n\r\n(FRONT SIDE)\t(REVERSE SIDE)\r\nOLYMPIC STADIUM\tCONDITIONS OF ENTERY\r\nAdmit one vehicle to Car Park\tcar or vehicle accepted subject to the following conditions:\r\nGood for date of issue only\tThe NRL will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever of or to the vehicle, its accessories or contents. Vehicles and good are left at Customer's risk.\r\n$30\r\nHe then drove his car to a designated parking area, parked it and then walked to the ground and watched the match.\r\n\r\nScenario 1\r\nOn his aura he found that their car had been badly damaged by another car using the car park\r\na) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider?\r\nb) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem?\r\nc) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?\r\nd) Based on this Information. if Guy sues the NRL for breach of contract will he win in court? What is your answer - Yes? or No? Explain your answer.\r\n\r\nScenario 2 (NB assume that the conditions of entry were part of the contract)\r\nOn his return discovered that an elephant (that had escaped from a nearby circus) had destroyed their car by sitting on it.\r\na) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider?\r\nb) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem?\r\nc) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?\r\nd) Based on this information. If Guy sues the NRL for breach of contract will he win in court? What is your answer - yes? or no? Explain your answer.\r\n\r\nProblem 5\r\nSellers of goods make many oral statements (representations) during negotiations. Not all of those statements, however, will be promissory (terms of the contract). Consider the following negotiations involving the sale of a motor vehicle:\r\n\r\na) Seller: \"This price cannot be beaten anywhere in the world!\"\r\nIs the seller's statement most likely to be a mere puff, mere representation or term of the contract? Explain.\r\nb) Seller (a car salesman):\"The car has no rust\"\r\nBuyer: That's great news! I've had nothing but trouble from cars with rust and I never, ever want to own another.\r\nIs the seller's statement most likely to be a mere puff, mere representation or term of the contract? Explain.\r\nc) Seller: The sound system is brand new\r\nBuyer: I'll think about it and get back to you soon, maybe later next week.\r\nIs the seller's statement most likely to be a mere puff, mere representation or term of the contract? Explain.\r\n\r\nThe main issue that arises is the default of the agreed payment by bill since they both agreed on the new consideration.\r\n relevant rule here is the doctrine of equitable estoppel since terms of the contract are changed and Emma relied on the new terms to enter into the contract.\r\nA relevant case here is Central London Property Trust v. High Trees House Ltd(1947).\r\nYes .Emma will win the case since a new consideration was made by bill and both accepted and consented to it therefore she should have received the $70 and not $50 as per the initial consideration\r\nThe issue to be considered here is that Mrs. Verity Rich despite having promised to give a reward to the one who would help her get her diamond rings back she did not pay the reward to PC smith.\r\nThe rule of offer and acceptance in unilateral contracts applies here since Mrs. Rich made an offer and police constable smith by making an effort to recover the diamond rings accepted the offer thus Mrs. Rich was bound to the contract.\r\nA relevant case here is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892].\r\nYes he will win .Mrs. Rich is bound to pay anyone who finds the diamond rings since after announcing over the radio she becomes bound to a contract with anyone who finds the diamond rings. When police constable smith finds the diamond rings he enters into a contract with Mrs. Rich.\r\nThe issue to consider here is that despite promising to pay Mary a weekly allowance Tim defaults the payment after three months however this is a domestic contract.\r\nThe relevant legal rule here is that of consideration with an intention to create a legally binding contract.\r\nA relevant case here is that of Balfour vs Balfour(1919).\r\nNo.This is a domestic agreement and not legally binding to the parties\r\n"