Contract Law Case Study: Analyzing Sharon vs. Therese Dispute

This case study examines a contract law dispute between Sharon and her mother, Therese, concerning a verbal agreement about property transfer. The analysis delves into the core elements of contract law, including the importance of mutual intention and the validity of oral contracts. It references relevant case laws such as Rose and Frank Co. v. Jr Crompton and Bros. Ltd and Ermogenous v. Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia Inc., to support its arguments. The case highlights the challenges of proving the existence and terms of an oral contract, emphasizing the need for a written agreement. The conclusion suggests that Sharon faces an uphill battle in court due to the lack of a written contract and recommends that future agreements be documented to ensure legal enforceability. The document is a valuable resource for understanding contract law principles and applying them to real-world scenarios.

CONTRACT LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Case Study....................................................................................................................................3
Relevant Case Laws.....................................................................................................................3
Conclusion of the given case...........................................................................................................3
Recommendation.............................................................................................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................4

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
Case Study
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.
Relevant 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).
Case: Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia Inc. (2002)
Judgement: In this case, the panel decided that only presumption will not work to complete any
valid contract because at the beginning all the aspects must be viewed properly.
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.
Recommendation
In short, it can be easily said that Sharon should have done written agreement to win the
case in this situation else she need to give some strong prove against Therese. Else, this case
cannot be entertained in the premises of Australian Court and Sharon cannot succeed to take the
paper of property.
References
Online
Definition of Contract law. 2016. [Online]. Available Through
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contract_law/>
Smith, J., 2018. Contract law in Australia [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law
Society of the Australian Capital Territory. (248). p.60.