https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45 Jack & Blink en-us 2020-09-03 00:55:40 UTC 2020-09-06 05:15:04 UTC hello@padlet.com sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716627271 2020-09-03 00:57:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716627271 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716627852 2020-09-03 00:57:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716627852 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716630536 2020-09-03 00:59:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716630536 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716632183 2020-09-03 01:00:15 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716632183 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716634825 2020-09-03 01:01:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716634825 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716636548 2020-09-03 01:02:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716636548 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716637364 2020-09-03 01:03:22 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716637364 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716637533 2020-09-03 01:03:28 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716637533 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716639334 2020-09-03 01:04:31 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716639334 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716640189 The assumed state of affairs being that Helena's guarantee was a term of the contract.]]> 2020-09-03 01:05:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716640189 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716641651 The assumption is that Blink would pay Jack for the work that he did - even if the client did not pay. ]]> 2020-09-03 01:05:52 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716641651 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716645553 2020-09-03 01:08:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716645553 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716646823 See: Saleh v Romaneous.]]> 2020-09-03 01:08:42 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716646823 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716647380 The possibility is discussed by Holmes J in Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd at [115]-[117]. 
"...pre-contractual negotiations could be relied on to found an estoppel by convention". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:09:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716647380 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716656044 Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd:  Priestley JA at [607]: 
"For equitable estoppel to operate there must be the creation or encouragement by the defendant in the plaintiff of an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise be performed or an interested granted to the plaintiff by the defendant, and reliance on that by the plaintiff, in circumstances where departure from the assumption by the defendant would be unconscionable".

Con-Stan Industries Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd cited in M K & J A Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd by Hodgson JA at [68]:
"There is no estoppel unless it can be shown that the alleged assumption has in fact been adopted by the parties as the conventional basis of their relationship...".]]> 2020-09-03 01:13:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716656044 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716657895 The agreement contains an "entire agreement clause" which precludes the consideration of prior agreements or conversations.

Helena mentions a fine print to Jack - this states that the talent will not be paid until Blink receives payment from the client.]]> 2020-09-03 01:14:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716657895 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716665361 Jack signed the agreement after the assumption was made by Helena. This indicates that Jack was induced to rely on the assumption.

See: Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 333 ALR 384 at [218]: 
"The promisor must have played such a part in the adoption [reliance] of the assumption...".]]> 2020-09-03 01:18:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716665361 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716668802 See: Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd.]]> 2020-09-03 01:20:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716668802 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716673574 Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd: Tobias J at [194]:
"Parties may adopt as the conventional basis of transaction between them an assumption which they know to be contrary to the actual state of affairs". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:23:10 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716673574 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716679888 An assumption cannot be inconsistent with the terms of a contract. 

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd: McPherson JA at [30]:
 "The defendants cannot assert a common assumption that is at odds with the express contract to which they agreed and into which they afterwards entered in the knowledge of its terms". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:26:25 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716679888 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716687508 See: Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 333 ALR 384 at [115]: 
"... the tribunal should have considered the sense in which the tenants understood the representation and whether it was reasonable for them to rely upon it". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:30:33 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716687508 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716688403 "You are entitled to expect to be paid for the work you do, and I guess that in those circumstances Blink would cover your fees". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:31:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716688403 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716690902 The assumption was not mentioned within the written contract. Jack signed and completely understood the terms of the contract. This included an "entire agreement" clause and detailed clauses about the payment system.

See M K & J A Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd for discussion about reliance.]]> 2020-09-03 01:32:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716690902 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716696488 2020-09-03 01:35:14 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716696488 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716697253 2020-09-03 01:35:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716697253 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716698431 Jack entered into the contract and completed work that he was sub-contracted to do as per the agreement. 

See: Michael Spence, 'Australian Estoppel and the Protection of Reliance' (1997) 11 Journal of Contract Law 203 for a discussion of reliance.]]> 2020-09-03 01:36:16 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716698431 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716700367 2020-09-03 01:37:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716700367 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716702871 Jack is struggling to pay rent. It is mentioned that his worry has impacted his university studies. ]]> 2020-09-03 01:38:39 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716702871 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716704252 2020-09-03 01:39:24 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716704252 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716705081 M K & J A Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd: Hodgson JA at [72]:
"Common law estoppel by representation or conventional estoppel still requires that the party relying on the estoppel must have "placed himself in a position of significant disadvantage if departure from the assumption be permitted".]]> 2020-09-03 01:39:52 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716705081 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716711685 Jack can argue that this is not binding authority as it was stated in the NSW Court of Appeal.]]> 2020-09-03 01:43:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716711685 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716713850 Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd & Gutnick: Buchanan J cites Deane J in The Commonwealth v Verwayen at [44]:
"Prima facie, the operation of an estoppel is to preclude departure from the assumed state of affairs. It is only where relief framed on the basis of that assumed state of affairs would be inequitably harsh, that some lesser form of relief should be awarded". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:44:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716713850 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716714585 2020-09-03 01:44:57 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716714585 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716714965 M K & J A Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd provides that a common law estoppel by convention requires that the assumption be made good.]]> 2020-09-03 01:45:10 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716714965 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716716329 2020-09-03 01:45:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716716329 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716719347 M K & J A Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgely Pty Ltd: Hodgson JA refers to Giumelli and states at [71]: "It is appropriate for this Court to proceed on the basis that here is still an all-or-nothing doctrine of common law estoppel by representation and conventional estoppel". 

This doctrine means that you either enforce the assumption or you do not. Here, detriment can only be removed if Blink makes good the assumption.]]> 2020-09-03 01:47:35 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716719347 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716731418 2020-09-03 01:54:17 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716731418 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716732591 2020-09-03 01:54:53 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716732591 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716735035 The statement of opinion was made by Helena on behalf of Blink.]]> 2020-09-03 01:56:23 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716735035 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716738954 Deane J at [436]:
"A representation of future fact and a representation of law will often, on analysis involve no more than a representation of an opinion. Where that is so, any estoppel will ordinarily be of no use to the represented since it will extend no further than precluding a denial that the represented opinion was truly held". ]]> 2020-09-03 01:58:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716738954 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716744944 2020-09-03 02:01:53 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716744944 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716745424 2020-09-03 02:02:11 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716745424 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716746281 "You are entitled to expect to be paid for the work that you do, and I guess that in those circumstances Blink would cover your fees". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:02:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716746281 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716748030 Estoppel as a shield, not a sword. ]]> 2020-09-03 02:03:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716748030 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716749982 Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd: Priestley JA at [607]: 
"For equitable estoppel to operate there must be the creation or encouragement by the defendant in the plaintiff of an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise be performed or an interest granted to the plaintiff by the defendant, and reliance on that by the plaintiff, in circumstances where departure from the assumption by the defendant would be unconscionable". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:04:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716749982 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716773144 2020-09-03 02:17:18 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716773144 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716776874 Jack understood the promise - he signed the agreement after the statement was made. Jack proceeded to undertake work as a sub-contractor for Blink. Helena made the promise on behalf of Blink.]]> 2020-09-03 02:19:27 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716776874 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716778191 Blink may argue that Helena was not authorised to make such a promise. Further, Helena's intention requires consideration. ]]> 2020-09-03 02:20:13 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716778191 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716779063 2020-09-03 02:20:44 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716779063 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716779873 Austotel v Franklins: Priestley JA at [603]:
"...there must be creation or encouragement... that a promise will be performed, and reliance on that promise".]]> 2020-09-03 02:21:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716779873 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716783343 No, Jack relied on the content of the agreement which he signed. Jack's signature and enforcement of the agreement concludes that Jack was aware of the "entire agreement" clause and what was meant by this. ]]> 2020-09-03 02:23:14 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716783343 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716791702 2020-09-03 02:28:05 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716791702 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716792465 This is viewed through Jack working as a sub-contractor for Blink as per their agreement. In acting on this belief, Jack acted to his detriment. 

Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd & Gutnick: Buchanan JA at [16]:
"Detriment would be occasioned to both Edensor and Gutnick if the assumption or expectation induced in them was not fulfilled". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:28:31 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716792465 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716812977 2020-09-03 02:40:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716812977 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716815647 2020-09-03 02:42:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716815647 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716816480 See: Commonwealth v Verwayen. Dawson J at [45]:
"An estoppel in equity may not entitle the party raising it to the full benefit of the assumption on which he relied. The equity is "not to compel the party bound to fulfil the assumption or expectation; it is to avoid the detriment which, if the assumption or expectation goes unfulfilled, will be suffered by the party who has been induced to act or to abstain from acting thereon".]]> 2020-09-03 02:42:47 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716816480 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716825281 Relief would be in the form of estopping Blink from denying that the promise made by Helena was a term of the contract. 

The development of this doctrine is held in Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406, extended in Commonwealth v Verwayen by Dawson J at [455]:
"He may be estopped from departing from the assumption if departure would amount to unconscionable conduct and operate to the detriment of the other party by reason of his reliance on the assumption". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:48:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716825281 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716832131 Dawson J at [454] in Verwayen was referring to parties in a pre-existing contractual relationship. The promise was made prior to the commencement of the legal contractual relationship between Blink and Jack. ]]> 2020-09-03 02:52:05 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716832131 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716839073 See: Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd & Gutnick and Austotel v Franklin. "Unconscionability enlivens equity". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:55:58 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716839073 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716840779 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher held that a pre-existing contractual relationship is "not a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel". ]]> 2020-09-03 02:57:02 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716840779 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716845899 2020-09-03 02:59:42 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716845899 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716847751 2020-09-03 03:00:48 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716847751 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716848324 See: Saleh v Romaneous. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:01:10 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716848324 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716849146 2020-09-03 03:01:42 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716849146 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716850240 This allows the court to look at extrinsic evidence, including the promise made by Helena to Jack prior to the commencement of the legal contractual relationship between Jack and Blink. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:02:25 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716850240 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716851457 2020-09-03 03:03:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716851457 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716853152 See: Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation. In this case Wilson J accepts that the statements made by Blackman at the restaurant were promissory and not merely representational. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:04:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716853152 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716858254 See: Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd: Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Calling and Heydon J at [41] (with reference to Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 78 ALJR 1045): "It is not the subjective beliefs or understandings of the parties about their rights and liabilities that govern their contractual relations. What matters is what each party by words and conduct would have led a reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe". ]]> 2020-09-03 03:07:16 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716858254 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716868805 2020-09-03 03:13:23 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716868805 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716871862 2020-09-03 03:15:22 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716871862 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716873341 Clause 15 of the agreement explicitly states "if a complaint is made by The Client relating to any booking that The Talent attends, then Blink may, at its complete discretion, terminate this agreement". ]]> 2020-09-03 03:16:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716873341 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716875428 See: Priestley JA at [607] in Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfeserve Pty Ltd. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:17:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716875428 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716878201 2020-09-03 03:19:26 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716878201 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716878793 Jack understood the clause. He signed the agreement and undertook work as a sub-contractor for Blink. The promisor's intention is found through the inclusion of clause 15 within the agreement.]]> 2020-09-03 03:19:52 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716878793 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716880705 A complaint was made by BB.]]> 2020-09-03 03:21:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716880705 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716880953 The complaint was revoked as further investigations revealed that the allegations made against Jack were "without merit and baseless". 

Ultimately, a true complaint was never made about Jack by a client. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:21:18 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716880953 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716884371 2020-09-03 03:23:25 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716884371 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716884789 Jack undertook work as a sub-contractor as per the agreement, relying on the entirety of the contract.]]> 2020-09-03 03:23:39 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716884789 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716887032 2020-09-03 03:25:02 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716887032 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716888334 Commonwealth v Verwayen by Dawson J at [455]:
"He may be estopped from departing from the assumption if departure would amount to unconscionable conduct and operate to the detriment of the other party by reason of his reliance on the assumption". ]]> 2020-09-03 03:25:53 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716888334 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716889837 2020-09-03 03:26:52 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716889837 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716891055 See: Commonwealth v Verwayen. Dawson J at [45]:
"The equity is "not to compel the party bound to fulfil the assumption or expectation; it is to avoid the detriment which, if the assumption or expectation goes unfulfilled, will be suffered by the party who has been induced to act or to abstain from acting thereon".]]> 2020-09-03 03:27:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716891055 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716892831 No there was not. Therefore, Blink did not possess the discretion to terminate the agreement. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:29:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716892831 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716965065 Express terms: incorporation.]]> 2020-09-03 04:19:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716965065 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716965325 See: Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation. ]]> 2020-09-03 04:19:55 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716965325 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716968419 Clause 29 of the agreement is an entire agreement clause, precluding the inclusion of any previous agreement or extrinsic evidence. ]]> 2020-09-03 04:22:05 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716968419 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716969719 2020-09-03 04:22:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716969719 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716973404 2020-09-03 04:25:20 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716973404 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716974428 2020-09-03 04:26:02 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716974428 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716975746 "You are entitled to expect to be paid for the work you do, and I guess that in those circumstances Blink would cover your fees". ]]> 2020-09-03 04:26:57 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716975746 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716976885 See the judgments in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation to ascertain a test regarding objective intention. ]]> 2020-09-03 04:27:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716976885 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716995432 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation: Gibbs CJ at [62]: 
"What must be ascertained is the intention which reasonable persons would have had if placed in the situation of the parties". 

Jack may argue that a reasonable person would objectively view that the parties intended that the statement made by Helena would form part of the agreement. ]]> 2020-09-03 04:39:48 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/716995432 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717015067 2020-09-03 04:51:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717015067 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717016194 2020-09-03 04:52:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717016194 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717017254 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd: Dawson J at [155]:
"The doctrine of privity of contract has long been accepted as inescapable having a regard to the place which promise occupies in our concept of contract". ]]> 2020-09-03 04:52:54 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717017254 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717025128 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd: Brennan J at [134] - [135]: 
"The rules which courts have developed to solve problems raised by a third party promisee are sometimes described as exceptions to the doctrine of privity, but are in truth applications of other legal principles... There is no true exception to the doctrine of privity".]]> 2020-09-03 04:57:37 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717025128 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717035364 Where A enters into a contract with B who is acting for C, the contract is really between A and C.

In the present case, A is Credit Union, B is Blink and C is Jack. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:04:00 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717035364 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717035482 2020-09-03 05:04:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717035482 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717039267 2020-09-03 05:06:22 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717039267 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717039828 Whilst we do not have access to the contract between Credit Union and Blink, it can be ascertained from the agreement between Jack and Blink that Credit Union and Blink entered into a contract. Within this contract, Blink acted as an agent for Jack.]]> 2020-09-03 05:06:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717039828 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717041612 2020-09-03 05:07:50 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717041612 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717042339 2020-09-03 05:08:15 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717042339 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717043088 Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd: Barwick CJ at [244]:
"The performance of the act or acts at the one moment satisfied the need for consideration and attracted the agreed terms". ]]> 2020-09-03 05:08:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717043088 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717047521 Following the authority of Barwick CJ in Port Jackson, Blink may argue that this was a dissenting judgement and therefore should not be followed.]]> 2020-09-03 05:11:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717047521 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717049300 2020-09-03 05:12:35 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717049300 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717050217 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd: Gaudron J at [173]:
"A promisor who was accepted an agreed consideration for a promise to benefit a third party comes under an obligation to the third party to fulfil that promise, and the third party acquires a right to bring an action to secure the benefit of that promise". ]]> 2020-09-03 05:13:08 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717050217 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717056646 Payment for services. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:17:14 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717056646 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717057160 See: Gate Gourmet Australia Pty Ltd (in liquid) v Gate Gourmet Holding AG.]]> 2020-09-03 05:17:37 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717057160 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717058452 Following Gate Gourmet, the language of the agreement between Blink and Jack it is clear that Blink and Credit Union intended that Jack obtain the benefit of payment for services. 

Although it can be distinguished on the facts, in Gate Gourmet it was held by Einstein J at [254]: 
"It is clear from the language of the letter, and the circumstances, that the Swiss parent and the Australian holding company intended that the Australian trading company obtain the benefit of the promises contained in the letter; on the faith of the letter, the Australian trading company continued to trade".

However, as the details of the contract between Blink and Credit Union are not accessible, this argument is limited to what can be ascertained from the agreement between Jack and Blink. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:18:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717058452 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717064875 2020-09-03 05:22:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717064875 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717065743 Coulls v Bagot's Executor & Trustee Co Ltd: Windeyer J at [493]: 
"She was not a stranger to the contract, but a party to it with him". ]]> 2020-09-03 05:23:09 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717065743 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717070313 It is clear that Jack was not intended to be a party to the contract. Jack signed a separate agreement with Blink as a sub-contractor. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:25:58 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717070313 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717072418 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd: Dawson J at [158]:
"It is one thing to expand the law by application of recognised principles to new situations. It is quite another thing to confront the law head-on by rejection of a rule which has stood for a century or more". ]]> 2020-09-03 05:27:15 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717072418 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717076310 Agency is not an "exception" to the doctrine of privity, it is an application of legal principle. 
See: Brennan J in Trident at [134]-[138].]]> 2020-09-03 05:29:42 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717076310 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717080972 Assuming that Credit Union agreed to this in their contract with Blink.]]> 2020-09-03 05:32:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717080972 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717082868 Mason CJ and Wilson J at [121]:
"The court will recognise the existence of a trust when it appears from the language of the parties, construed in context, that the parties so intended. In divining intention from the language the courts may look to the nature of the transaction and circumstances, including commercial necessity in order to infer or impute intention".]]> 2020-09-03 05:33:44 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717082868 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717090909 2020-09-03 05:38:29 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717090909 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717092047 In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd, it was held at [171] that:
"The appellant entered into a contractual obligation with Blue Circle and did so with the intention that the benefit of that obligation should extend to those involved with Blue Circle as contracts and sub-contractors". 

This case can be distinguished on its facts and applied to the present matter. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:39:11 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717092047 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717093077 The nature of the contract between Blink and Credit Union is unknown, therefore this is merely a speculative argument.]]> 2020-09-03 05:39:48 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717093077 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717103233 It has been suggested that this may frustrate the law.]]> 2020-09-03 05:45:57 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717103233 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717104496 Toohey J states in Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd at [171]:
"To declare that the law permits the respondent to bring action does not frustrate the intentions of those involved; rather it gives effect to those intentions.]]> 2020-09-03 05:46:34 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717104496 sburnett37 https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717107115 2020-09-03 05:48:16 UTC https://padlet.com/sburnett37/f1wmp08gweb4pi45/wish/717107115