SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers
Assignment Details:
BLAW EssayPart A (1000 words)Question 1 Analyse the law(Suggested cases)Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Church of SA:*Jones V Padavattan,* Todd V Nicol*Rose & Frank V Crampton case ….—What is the legal rule?Question 2 apply the law and conclude whether Gayle will be successful in the case. Use IRAC method.–Intention to create element 4.–The case is not legally binding contract nor a breach of contract. Clearly it is only a casual agreement not a contract.Here, the case study tells us that…In conclusion, it is clear that there is NOT a binding contract between Mark and Gayle because ———. As a result, I would not recommend Gayle sue Mark for breach …. BecausePart B (1000 words)Question 3 – Promisory Esptopel (Case of Waltons Stores V Maher)According to the case of Walton v Maher, Promisory Estopel is an equitable remedy which applies when —–EXPLAIN THE LAW ONLY — DO NOT REFER TO AAA PTY AND BBB PTYLD)Case example — Giumelli v Giumelli caseQuestion 4 – Application
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER