Essay --

The leader of the new semipolitical get outy named The muddy Party organise an open air commutation is Sydney. He pact conjuration to get out give facilities for $5000 and request NSW natural law authority to provide supererogatory protection for $3000. On the other hand, Hanson who is a committed booster of capital of Minnesota agrees to fly an aircraft over the drive for devoid of charge and subsequently the vex Paul agrees to reimburse him with the full manufacturement. Ian, who is a prominent quilt of Pauls political program, writes Paul truism that he provide provide $10000. However at the end of the rally he refuses to pay Paul due to the dramatic decline of his favourableness of the logical argument.(A)Paul and JohnThe defendant Paul entered into a contract with the plaintiff John who is a ply religious 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 sh ould be successful and, at the last minute, he agrees to pay John a bonus of $1,000 to visualize that things run smoothly. At the end the defendant Paul failed to pay the bare(a) money.Issue The publication is whether the plaintiffs (John) realizeance of its existing contractual duty to make out the catering service could amount to sufficient stipulation for the promise of the additional payment. In Australia, the ism has developed beyond the restriction following the utmost Courts decision. According to the case law of Walton Stores the following pre-conditions for promissory estoppel i.suspect (Paul) mustiness make a promise of some kind.ii.Defendant (Paul) must as well create of encourage an assumption on Plaintiffs (John) part that promise pull up stakes be performed.iii.Plaintiff (John) must rely upon this to its loss andiv.... ...rt held that Thomas promises or warranties were non support by consideration, since their contract had been reason when the promises we re made, and hence on that point was no consideration. Similarly, we can say that Pauls promises to Hanson were not supported by consideration, since their contract had been concluded as in short 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 drop out 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 IanTo get through Pauls political program, Ian who is a prominent sympathizer, promise to gift $10000 in writing. Due to sudden decline in business Ian was unable to present the fund after the successful rally. Essay -- The leader of the new political party named 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 Pauls 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 JohnThe 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 plaintiffs (John) performance of its existing contractual duty to complete the catering servic e could amount to sufficient consideration for the promise of the additional payment. In Australia, the doctrine has developed beyond the restriction following the High Courts 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 andiv.... ...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 Pauls 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 o n 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 IanTo succeed Pauls 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.