Top End Runner’s club举办10公里趣味跑，为新会所募集资金。在这种跑步中，有兴趣的人赞助跑步者，其基础是赞助者将在跑步结束或每公里跑步时支付一定的金额。戴夫是俱乐部的支持者，有兴趣赞助这位赛跑运动员。Dave在活动前3天见了Wendy，并提到如果她要参加这个活动，他可以赞助，条件是Wendy必须在1小时内跑完全程。另一方面，温迪的朋友比尔也提到，如果温迪决定参加，比尔可以支付她的新运动服和鞋子。基于此，温迪花了2000美元去买新衣服和新鞋子，然后参加了“趣味跑步”，并在58分钟内完成。事件发生后，温迪找到戴夫和比尔，两人都拒绝赔偿，说没有法律义务，也不应该买这么贵的衣服。这让温迪很生气，她决定对戴夫和比尔采取行动，但比尔和比尔都拒绝了。这里主要关心的是理解在他们之间应用的合同，以及对Bill和Dave采取行动的合同的有效性。如果比尔和戴夫能遵守合同条款，主要的讨论要点将建立在理解的基础上。在这样的背景下，合同法律、条款和被指控违反合同的补救措施也将在本文中讨论。这个合同的问题是温迪没有通知戴夫和比尔在做最后的决定之前参加有趣的跑步，以及购买昂贵的衣服和鞋子。
Top End Runner’s club conducted 10Kms fun run in order to raise fund for a new club house. In this run, the runners are sponsored by interested people on the basis that the sponsor person will pay certain amount at the end of run or for each kilometre they run. Dave is supporter of the club and interested to sponsor the runner. Dave met to Wendy, 3 days prior to the event and mentioned her that if she is going to this event, he can sponsor based on one condition that Wendy has to finish the run within 1 hour. On the other side, Wendy’s friend Bill also mentioned that if Wendy decides to participate, Bill can pay for her new running clothes & shoes. Based on this, Wendy went out for shopping of new clothes and shoes for $2000 and went to participate in the ‘fun run’ and completed that within 58 minutes. After the event, when Wendy approached both Dave and Bill, both denied to compensate her by saying that there is no legal obligation as well not expected to buy such an expensive clothes. This made Wendy quite angry, and she decided to take action against Dave and Bill but both Bill and Dave resisted the claim. The main concern here is to understand the contract that has been applied in between of them and the validity of the contract to take action against both Bill and Dave. The main points of discussion would be based on understanding if Bill and Dave could be held to the terms of the contract. Given this background context, the contract laws, terms and remedies for alleged breach of contract, would also be discussed in this work. The problem with this contract is that Wendy did not inform to Dave and Bill before making the final decision to participate in the fun run and also for buying expensing clothes and shoes.
Australian Contract Law makes provisions that are to be mandatory and followed between one or more parties in order for a contract to be legal 1. The contract by nature is considered as a legally binding promise that holds the parties involved in the terms of the promise. They have an obligation to act according to the terms and when they fail to do so then it is held that a contract has been breached . Now the ways of contract breach will depend on the clauses that are set in the promise or agreement. The agreement could be written or could be oral.
Australian contract law in deciding for the breach of contract for either party gives importance to consideration. Consideration in contract is the primarily benefit or element of bargain for which the parties enter into a contract. When checking for the existence of a contract, Australian courts check for consideration, intent to enter into a contract and more .
Although key elements such as consideration and intent to enter into contract are brought into context, sometimes, even with differences in intent, based on primary discussions, the contact could be held. This was the holding in Smith V Hughes2. An agreement between a buyer and seller, had difference in intention but was still considered to be a valid contract. The court chose to ignore the difference in intentions .