(Solution) Assignment on Contract Law

CONTRACT LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
4.1Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. (2002) 209 CLR 95........................3
4.2 Issue in the case .....................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION OF THE GIVEN CASE........................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5
.........................................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Contract law is defined a part of agreement where two or more than two parties are
involved for a common purpose (Definition of Contract law, 2016). To make any contact valid
there must be acceptance to the given offer. According to law, it is necessary that the object of
contract be legal else it will not be counted as a valid contract.
MAIN BODY
4.1Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. (2002) 209 CLR 95.
Subject matter of the agreement.
The subject matter was related with creating the contractual relationship with Churches
and religious Association.
Status of the parties (authority eg deal with CEO)
The status of the party can be seen that Person was working as archbishop in the
premisses of church since 23 years.
Relationship to each other
Their relation with each other was to create contractual relations while giving the service
for 23 years.
Language used
The language which has been used in this case was formal legal law language which is
mandatory to be used in each and every case..
Subsequent Conduct
the fact was found that their was no legal contract which had taken place between
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. the facts shows that case is irrelevant.
Context Of The Agreement
The contract which had occurred was social terms where main motive was just to take
services and their was no discussion on the process of payment.
4.2 Issue in the case
In the given case, there are two parties are involved in a contract Sharon and her mother
Therese. The agreement between them was oral where Sharon mother told her to take care of her
for 10 years and after that she will hand over the property paper to her. So, looking at this
condition Sharon thought that if agreement will have held successfully then she can provide a

better life to her five children. But, after completing 10 years Therese disagree with her words
and she told that she was not serious about the matter.
Case Laws
Case: Rose and Frank Co v Jr Crompton and Bros Ltd (1925)
Judgement: In this case, judges decided that there must be a common intention at the time of
entering into any contract. Also, there should be mutual communication between involved party
to make a valid contract (Smith, 2018).
Application of law
The main intention of Therese was just to take revenge and their was no intention to enter
into contract. Even it can be found that their was no legal agreement between Therese and
Sharon.
CONCLUSION OF THE GIVEN CASE
From the given case study, it can be easily concluded that there was a clear intention
between Therese and Sharon because they had an agreement that if Sharon will stay with her
mother for 10 years then she will hand over the property paper to her. It can be clearly seen that
both had a clear intention but Therese changed her words at the last moment. And from the
second case it can be understood that the main burden to file case in court in the hand of Sharon.
As, it can be found that Therese and Sharon had verbal communication and there was no any
legal written agreement between each other so this case will need to be investigated very deeply.
There was just a presumption in this case too because intention was not so clear of Therese and
she just wanted to take a revenge because Sharon married to Naveen without her permission and
because of this their relation was also not so clear. At the end, it can be said that Sharon have to
try hard to prove in a court that there was clear intention because it’s her liability to defend
herself and claim the property.

REFERENCES
Smith, J., 2018. Contract law in Australia [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law
Society of the Australian Capital Territory. (248). p.60.
Online
Definition of Contract law. 2016. [Online]. Available Through
<https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-contract.html>