Contract Law Assignment: Analyzing Common Law Principles and Cases

This document presents a comprehensive analysis of a common law assignment concerning contract law principles. The assignment explores several key areas, including the enforceability of contracts with minors, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the concept of past consideration, and the rules surrounding offers made to the whole world. The solution provides detailed explanations of each legal concept, supported by relevant case law such as Nash v. Inman, Combe v Combe, and Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher. The analysis addresses scenarios involving minors, gratuitous promises, and past acts, providing a clear understanding of how these principles apply in practical situations. The assignment also examines the requirements for valid offers and acceptances, offering a thorough examination of contract law fundamentals.

1.
In this case the issue is if a contract created with a minor can be really enforced. A law provides
that a contract that has been created with a minor is not void ab initio but the law allows the
minor to avoid such a contract. In such cases it is available to the minor to decide in favor of
enforcing the rights that are available under the contract against an adult person if the other
necessary elements offer valid contract are present. In this context the law of contract provides
that only the contracts that have been created for the purposes of providing the necessities of life
to the minor can be enforced. In this reality required that the necessities should be those that are
suitable for the minor, according to his or her position in life.1 Moreover such contract can be
enforced only against the minor;'s estate. In the present case, Tiny Tim is a minor>. Therefore
while the contract cannot be enforced against Tim by Jen, it can be enforced by Tim
2.
According to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, when a party to the contract has significantly
changed its position as a result of relying on a gratuitous promise, the party is allowed by the law
to enforce the promise against the other party even if the elements that are necessary for creating
a legally enforceable contract or not exist in that particular case. However in such cases it is
required that under the circumstances it can be reasonably expected that the party was in use by
the gratuitous promise for changing its position.2 In the same way, the law also requires that the
1 Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1
2 Carter, JW and DJ Harland, Cases and Materials on Contract Law in Australia, 3rd Edition(Butterworths,
Australia, 1998)

circumstances should be such that it was reasonably justifiable to rely on the promise.3 In the
present case, Simon reasonably relied on the promise and he had spent hours in the preparation
of Cuban style fondant declarations. Under the circumstances, the decision is that Simon can rely
on the doctrine of promissory estoppel or the purpose of enforcing the promise made by Jen.
3.
There are certain rules provided by the law of contract related with consideration. According to
one such rule, past consideration does not valid. For this purpose, past consideration can be
described as past act or promise on the basis of which are future promises based upon. It can be
said that the promises based on past consideration when the motive behind the promise was a
past benefit.4 In such cases there is only a moral obligation to compensate the other party and
there is no such legal obligation. Hence in the present case, Jen has helped Adam in the past but
this past act cannot act as a valid consideration for supporting the promise made by Adam to help
Jim for the party.
4.
An example of the offer that has been made to the whole world is the case where a reward has
been offered by a person. Therefore in case of such an offer, there is no requirement of
conveying the acceptance of the offer. It is considered that the party who had performed the
required act has accepted the offer and therefore a legally enforceable contract is present with
such a person.5 However, it is worth mentioning that when a particular person or group has been
mentioned, only such person or group can accept the offer. In the present case, the offer made by
3 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
4 Furmston, M. P.; Cheshire, Geoffrey; Simpson, Alfred; Fifoot, Cecil (2006) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law
of Contract, Oxford University Press
5 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7

Jen was only available to all her cousins. As a result, Bill cannot be allowed to accept this offer.
Consequently he cannot claim $20 from Jen even if he helped Jen in setting up the party.

Bibliography
Carter, JW and DJ Harland, Cases and Materials on Contract Law in Australia, 3rd
Edition(Butterworths, Australia, 1998)
Furmston, M. P.; Cheshire, Geoffrey; Simpson, Alfred; Fifoot, Cecil (2006) Cheshire, Fifoot and
Furmston's Law of Contract, Oxford University Press
Case Law
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7