Advice for Jack in the matter of Jack v Blink Pty Ltd by https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5 Contracts II en-us 2020-08-18 08:26:12 UTC 2020-09-05 07:16:34 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/270d.png Issue I: Can Jack receive compensation for his unpaid work, pursuant to the ‘Agreement’? What are his options? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716868307 2020-09-03 03:13:04 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716868307 Issue II: Can Jack’s ‘Agreement’ with Blink be terminated? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716869216 2020-09-03 03:13:38 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716869216 Yes, because of the 'Complaint Clause'. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716871553 According to the 'Agreement', Clause 15 states that if a complaint is made to the company, they can act on their discretion. This means that they have a right to terminate the talent's contract.]]> 2020-09-03 03:15:09 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716871553 No, the complaint made was false, so clause 15 should not apply. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716873250 It is said that a complaint was made by BB to Blink, stating that Jack was caught sampling beverages. Although a complaint was made, the facts state that it was based on false allegations. This is supported through the apology letter written 2 weeks after the allegations. This ascertains that the complaint is false. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:16:16 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716873250 What are Jack's Options? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716878005 2020-09-03 03:19:17 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716878005 Is Jack a party to the 'Agreement'? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716880813 In order to be paid, it must be established that Jack is a party to the agreement. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:21:12 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716880813 Is Jack Privy to the contract? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716881596 Only parties who have entered into an agreement (by signing) can be bound by its terms and obligations (see Trident). ]]> 2020-09-03 03:21:44 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716881596 Can Jack get around Privity through 'Agency'? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716886134 When an agent enters into a contract for a principal, the principal will be benefited and burdened by the contract. Although Helena is the agent who deals with Jack, it is Blink who becomes party to the contract, not Helena (see Trident's case  and Port Jackson Stevedoring v Salmond & Spraggon). ]]> 2020-09-03 03:24:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716886134 Option II: Does Clause 9 of the 'agreement' express that Jack will be paid for his work? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716887149 The clause states that the 'Talent' must provide an invoice to the company after completing work in order to be paid. It also states that in addition to the invoice, they will proceed payment once the client has paid them.]]> 2020-09-03 03:25:06 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716887149 Was an invoice provided to Blink? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716891101 As required by the clause, the Talent needs to send an invoice to Blink in order to be paid for their work. The facts state that Jack processed an invoice of $2,352.00 after completing his work with the Credit Union on the 4th April 2018. ]]> 2020-09-03 03:27:48 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716891101 Was Helena's statement express or implied? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716894909 Express. She stated that "you are entitled to expect to be paid for the work you do". She also stated that in this case, Blink would have to pay Jack.]]> 2020-09-03 03:30:44 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716894909 Final outcome: Yes, he is entitled to be paid for his work at the Credit Union. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716895732 Jack will be compensated the monetary amount of $2,352.00]]> 2020-09-03 03:31:21 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716895732 Final Outcome: No, Jack is not entitled to be paid for his work at the Credit Union obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716896063 Cl 29 and the interpretation of the exclusion clause suggests that Jack will not be entitled to be paid $2,352.00]]> 2020-09-03 03:31:36 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/716896063 Direction 2) Public Policy? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717012567 Jack could potentially argue that Helena's actions to terminate the contract on false terms is void due to Public Policy. Public Policy requires that people act in a moral way. The court may look into the behaviour of Helena against what 'standards of behaviour' are expected of the community. (see Seidler v Schallhofer [1982]). Although this is a potential direction, I do not think it is strong enough to prevent Jack's contract being terminated. ]]> 2020-09-03 04:49:58 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717012567 Direction 1) Is Cl 15 valid? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717013512 2020-09-03 04:50:34 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717013512 Option I: Yes, Jack could make a cause of action pursuant to 'Promissory Estoppel'. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717053695 A promise was made to Jack before signing the agreement by Helena. She made an oral statement saying that Blink would reimburse Jack for his work if the client does not pay. ]]> 2020-09-03 05:15:16 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717053695 Who is my client and what do they want/need? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717064636 My client is Jack. He wants compensation for his unpaid work (Issue I).
He also does not want his contract to be terminated as it is his only income to pay bills (Issue 2). This is because he had to leave his casual job in order to commit to this job.
]]> 2020-09-03 05:22:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717064636 What is the objective of Clause 9.1 in regard to invoices? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717089233 In Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas, it was stated that the law should adopt an 'objective approach' when ascertaining what the party intended to convey. The language of clause 9.1 can be said to be read in its 'natural and ordinary'. Read in this light, the meaning reflects that when provided with an invoice, they can process payment ]]> 2020-09-03 05:37:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717089233 What is the 'objective' of cl 9.2 in regard to processing payment? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717099057 The clause states that in addition to an invoice,  to receive payment the client must pay Blink first. Courts apply the objective approach to ascertain a parties' intentions (Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas) ]]> 2020-09-03 05:43:22 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717099057 Invoice has been provided. Talent has done accordingly pursusant to 9.1 obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717343168 2020-09-03 08:14:35 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717343168 Is Jack entitled to receive the payment? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717345709 2020-09-03 08:16:35 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717345709 No, the Cl 9.2 states he can only get paid when client pays obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717348597 2020-09-03 08:18:51 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717348597 Is this act as an exclusion clause? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717355980 Cl 9.2 intends to not give the Talent money, unless the client pays them. Therefore, it acts as an exclusion to being liable for compensating a Talent.]]> 2020-09-03 08:24:40 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717355980 Does it fit within the principles of Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717360545 In order for the clause to be valid, it must fit within the following criteria:]]> 2020-09-03 08:28:10 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717360545 1. Is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717363177 The 'natural and ordinary' meaning of the clause suggests that if the client does not pay, then the talent does not get paid. If a reasonable person read this clause, they would assume this (see Equuscorp v Glengallan Investments). ]]> 2020-09-03 08:30:15 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717363177 2. Read in light of the contract as a whole obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717364621 If contract is read as a whole, it can be assumed that the parties intentions was for the 'Talent' (Jack) to only be paid once receiving money from the client. In addition to cl 9.2 specifically, there is also no contingency clause to state what would happen if client does not pay. "Intention is used … [to describe] what it is that would objectively be conveyed by what was said or done, having regard to the circumstances in which those statements and actions happened"( See Toll) ]]> 2020-09-03 08:31:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717364621 3. Thus giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717365420 The nature and object of the contract is to provide work to the talent, which will then benefit the company. The contract also states in Cl 8.1 that the 'Talent' and the company have a independent contractor relationship, not employer/employee. This could potentially infer that Blink did not want to be liable for  the talent. ]]> 2020-09-03 08:32:02 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717365420 What is the 'objective' of this cl 15 in regard to termination? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717563949 In Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas, it was stated that the law should adopt an 'objective approach' when ascertaining what the party intended to convey. The language of clause 15 infers that if a complaint is made about the 'talent', Blink has discretion to terminate their contract.]]> 2020-09-03 11:51:41 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717563949 What 'authority' does Helena have? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717581457 2020-09-03 12:03:10 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717581457 Did Jack provide consideration provided? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717588083 2020-09-03 12:06:53 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717588083 Promissory estoppel obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717597756 The objective of estoppel is to prevent unjust departure from reliance on an assumption (Thompson v Palmer). ]]> 2020-09-03 12:12:02 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717597756 No, it wasn't express or implied obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717608352 Helena said she "guesses" that Blink would have to pay Jack. This could be considered a 'mere puff' (see Thake v Maurice [1986])]]> 2020-09-03 12:17:49 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717608352 Was there reliance on this statement by Jack? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717613995 After Helena stating that he would be paid by blink, he signed the contract. ]]> 2020-09-03 12:20:45 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717613995 Did Jack suffer detriment due to his reliance on the promise? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717615929 2020-09-03 12:21:43 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717615929 Would it be unconscionable if Helena didn't keep her promise? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717656096 2020-09-03 12:40:10 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717656096 No, the detriment suffered is not 'severe enough'. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717666269 Jack had only not been paid for work which was for a one week period. It could be argued that this is not a long enough period of time. ]]> 2020-09-03 12:44:31 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717666269 Yes. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717668435 It would be argued that Helena going back on her promise is unconscionable as it has caused detriment to Jack (See Legione v Heateley, it was held that a vendor's statement of 'sufficient funds' to complete an extension on time was unconscionable as the time had expired).]]> 2020-09-03 12:45:22 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717668435 No obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717668828 Helena's oral promise could be seen as not certain through the use of 'I guess'. Additionally, the departure of her promise only effected one week of pay and the loss of a casual job. This could mean that it is not severe enough to satisfy unconscionability. ]]> 2020-09-03 12:45:32 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/717668828 Final Outcome : Yes, Jack's agreement with Blink can be terminated obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/719770754 This is because Cl 15 is valid, thus the company can act in its own discretion and terminate Jack's agreement. ]]> 2020-09-04 00:30:08 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/719770754 Final Outcome: No, Jack's agreement with Blink cannot be terminated obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/719770911 2020-09-04 00:30:14 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/719770911 No. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720014979 Just signing a contract is not sufficient enough for consideration (see Coulls v Baggot)]]> 2020-09-04 02:45:34 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720014979 Yes. Counterargument of 'Joint Promisee' obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720016380 If it can be established that Jack is a joint promisee, there is no need for him to provide consideration for the agreement (see Coulls v Bagot's Executor & Trustee)]]> 2020-09-04 02:46:26 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720016380 Is Jack a Joint Promisee? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720019233 2020-09-04 02:48:18 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720019233 Yes obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720022084 Jack is a Joint Promisee, thus he is able to enforce the contract without providing consideration (Coulls v Bagot’s Exectuor & Trustee Co)]]> 2020-09-04 02:50:14 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720022084 Did Jack sign the agreement? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720032345 Jack is said to have physically signed the agreement. When a contract is in writing, a party is bound by the terms and obligations which are contained within it (See L'Estrange and Toll)
An exception for liability can be raised by the signee through 'promissory estoppel']]> 2020-09-04 02:56:35 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720032345 Actual authority obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720042324 If Helena has authority, Jack is liable for the obligations and terms in the contract imposed on him. ]]> 2020-09-04 03:03:21 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720042324 Helena has no authority, BUT Blink has the option of utilising 'authority by ratification' obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720043623 If Helena was not authorised by Blink to enter into the contract, then Jack cannot be bound to the agreement. BUT, Blink has the option of authorising the contract later through 'ratification' to make it binding.]]> 2020-09-04 03:04:13 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720043623 Helena had no authority. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720057565 It could be assumed Helena had no authority to make the oral statement  by Blink. This can be inferred by no clause in the contract suggesting Blink reimbursing the 'Talent'  if a client does not pay. This would mean that Blink is liable to pay Jack. More information needed to ascertain whether this is the case.]]> 2020-09-04 03:13:16 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720057565 Yes, there is sufficient detriment. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720068373 He did not get paid for the work he had done. He also left his job to work this new job, meaning he now has no source of income which is affecting his university studies and his wellbeing. ]]> 2020-09-04 03:20:40 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720068373 Did Jack read the clause through its 'natural and ordinary meaning'? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720080223 It could be argued that him raising his concerns regarding what would happen if the client does not pay to Helena could infer that he understood what the clause meant. ]]> 2020-09-04 03:29:10 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720080223 Yes, Cl 15 is valid obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720190963 2020-09-04 04:55:49 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720190963 What if the complaint turns out to be false? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720197196 The accusation against Jack is stated on the facts to be without merit and untrue.]]> 2020-09-04 05:00:44 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720197196 Does Cl 15 reflect the principles in Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720200643 2020-09-04 05:03:13 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720200643 Yes. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720202011 Pursuant to the principles in  Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd:
1. The 'natural and ordinary' meaning of the clause suggests that Blink has the right to terminate, if a reasonable person read this clause, they would suggest the same.
2. Read in light of the contract as a whole: Can be assumed that the contract is meant to place restrictions and obligations upon the 'talent'
3. Nature and object of the clause as a whole: To have a subcontractor relationship with Blink. In a commercial contract, it is assumed that there will be legal obligations and clauses imposed on workers. This was the object and nature of the clause as a 'termination clause'.

]]> 2020-09-04 05:04:24 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720202011 Counterargument: Blink could raise the Parole Evidence rule obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720209476 "where the parties, in a written document, intend for that document to be the full and final summary of their agreement then extrinsic evidence (ie, oral conversations and/or other documents) cannot be considered for purposes of interpreting/understanding the scope/meaning/etc of the parties’ agreement". (see Coulls v Baggots).]]> 2020-09-04 05:10:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720209476 Option III: Can Jack argue it is a collateral contract? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720513721 2020-09-04 10:34:00 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720513721 No, the oral agreement is not the same as the written. obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720514021 You cannot make a collateral contract claim if it would contradict the written contract.
(Skyrise Consultants Pty Ltd v Metroland Funds Management Ltd [2011])
]]> 2020-09-04 10:34:27 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720514021 Is it Partly Oral/ Partly Written? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720516716 In Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd, it was held that this cannot be considered if  the terms of the written  agreement contradict the oral agreement. This is is invalid in this case as their is a contradiction with the oral statement saying Blink will pay 'the talent' even if the client does not pay. Cl 9 does not reflect this.

]]> 2020-09-04 10:38:22 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/720516716 Is there an express right to terminate? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722390516 Cl 15 makes it clear that Blink has discretion to terminate the 'Talent's Contract']]> 2020-09-05 03:31:30 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722390516 Was it reasonable? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722391104 Priestley JA in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works "The contract can in my opinion only be effective as a workable business document under which the promises of each party can be fuffiled, if [the express right] is subject to requirements of 'reasonablness']]> 2020-09-05 03:32:43 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722391104 No obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722392830 It was not reasonable as it was based on false claims which were proven to be untrue. Megaher JA in Renard Constructions held that misunderstandings could not be 'reasonable']]> 2020-09-05 03:36:25 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722392830 Yes obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722393513 This would be very hard to prove, as we are told on the facts that the allegations were false.]]> 2020-09-05 03:37:49 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722393513 Is there a time limit for ratification? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722409581 Yes. If this path is taken by Blink, it must be done promptly. In Trident, McHugh JA rejected ratification as it did not take place in a 'reasonable time'. If Blink follows suit with this, Jack will not be entitled to compensation according to the exception of 'ratification'. ]]> 2020-09-05 04:10:53 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722409581 Was this 'reasonable' reliance? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722427199 (Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins)]]> 2020-09-05 04:49:26 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722427199 Yes obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722428244 This is an 'objective' test. It could be argued that the statement made by Helena  would be held to the 'reasonable' standard of which someone would rely upon. In Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins, Priestley JA used Plimmer to express how a 'reasonable expectation' that an occupation won't be disturbed fits this criteria, in which the plaintiff relied on. ]]> 2020-09-05 04:51:45 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722428244 No obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722428280 Helena stated she 'guesses' Blink would compensate Jack if the client does not pay. A 'reasonable person' could have seen doubts and not relied on this. ]]> 2020-09-05 04:51:51 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722428280 Did Blink intend for the document to be the final agreement? obrienabbey99 https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722439246 It would be hard to argue against this. It can be seen that Blink intended for the contract to mean that if the client does not pay, then the talent does not get paid. Evidence of this can be seen through no reimbursement clause, despite having a payment provision with 2 clauses and 5 sub-clauses. This could infer that Blink had placed their agreement full into the written agreement which Jack signed.]]> 2020-09-05 05:19:25 UTC https://padlet.com/obrienabbey99/op4sxswcvtb94bj5/wish/722439246