Introduction
Billy is asked if he is legally entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm as promised to him by this father Choy, for continuing the operations on the farm. Billy gives up a year of study at university to do so and in return is promised $30,000 and a share of the land by Choy. After three months of working he experiences conflict with Choy’s wife, Maggie, but is promised another $20,000 by Choy if he stays.
To determine whether Billy is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm we are to first explore whether a contract is formed, and if promissory estoppel would apply in this situation and the relevant terms attached to this contract. Using the common law of contract we can answer these questions, and Billy’s entitlements. a) Is there a contract?
Before Billy can be sure he is entitled to anything we first must establish that Billy and Choy have entered into a legally binding contract. For a legal contract to be held, all essential elements of an offer, acceptance, consideration and intentions to enter into a contract, must be present.
First there must be an offer for a contract to exist. The offer is made by Choy to Billy, for Billy to give up a year of his study and help out on the farm as Choy is away to look after his sick mother, and in return Billy is promised $30,000 and a share of the farm land. We assume that Choy’s offer is communicated clearly and well. Although Billy does not verbally accept the offer, as silence is not a form of acceptance, Billy does show his acceptance through his conduct, similar to the case of Empirnall Holdings Pty v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd, which had established that acceptance can be shown through consistent actions, where Billy’s actions of returning to the farm and working represents his acceptance of Choy’s offer. This means that this contract is formed orally as