Introduction
The familial relationship between parties Choy (“C”), Maggie (“M”) and Billy (“B”) establish issues to whether there is intent to enter into a legal relationship. Also, C’s promise for an extra $20 000 must be determined as to whether it is fair consideration. When C returns, he pays the $30 000 only. This outcome may lead to inequity, and thus the doctrine of promissory estoppel may apply.
To determine whether Billy is entitled to the extra $20 000 and a share of the property, we need to examine whether a legally binding contract exists, whether the subsequent consideration of $20 000 is good consideration, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.

Is there a contract?
For B to be entitled to the extra $20 000 and a share of the property, it must be determined that a legally enforceable contract existed between C and B. To determine whether a contract exists, the following essential elements of a contract can be examined: intention to be legally bound, offer, acceptance, and consideration. For a contract to exist, there also must legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of purpose, however these are not relevant to the case.
In order for a contract to exist, there must be evidence that all parties had intended to enter into a legally binding contract. The facts in this case suggests that due to C and B’s relationship as father and son, it is presumed that there is no intention to enter into legal relations . However, this presumption is able to be rebutted by evidence. Considering the seriousness involved in B’s postponement of his university studies in Brisbane in order to work on the farm, the issue of intent in this case is similar to that of Wakeling v Ripley . In this case, Ripley had written an invitation to his sister, Wakeling, who resided in England, to live with him, under the promise that he would leave her the