Question

Question 1: July 2015. She married Rajib in August 2016 who at that time had been working as the Chief Financial Sukriti after graduation from MIT Sydney has been working as an accountant at Best Accountants since Officer at Sydney Finance Miracle. On their first wedding anniversary, Rajib promised to buy a diamond necklace for Sukriti. However, Rajib lost his job immediately before the anniversary and as a result could not carry out his promise to Sukriti. Since then their relationship started deteriorating. In December 2018, they agreed to end their relationship by way of divorce and as required by law, since then they have been living separately. In the meantime, while Rajib was going through financial hardship early this year, Sukriti lent him AUD$10,000 upon Rajib’s promise to repay the loan within a month.

Required: Advise Sukriti whether she can enforce Rajib’s promise to buy her a diamond necklace and to repay the loan could be enforced under Australian contract law. Refer to relevant case laws in support of your answer.

Answer 1

Australian contract law is based on legislatively modified English common law, rather than a civil code. The basic principle is freedom of contract, in which parties free to bargain as they choose within legislated parameters.

Australian courts will give considerable weight to the parties’ intentions, as expressed in documentary form.

While parties have a general freedom to choose the terms, format and content of their bargain, the following should be noted:

• Contracts do not have to be evidenced in writing save for certain types of transactions such as dealings involving interests in land
• Contracts can be written, created by conduct, implied from circumstances, arise by operation of legislation, orally created or a combination of the preceding modes of creation
• Contract operation and enforcement is generally facilitated by having a document signed by all parties evidencing the bargain.

In the present case

rajib promised to the sukrithi to give a dimond necklace at the time of wedding

but here the contract of wedding got cancelled becauase of they were separated..here rajib no need to give the dimond necklace to the sukrithi

and

rajib will be payable the amount taken from the sukrithi with the interest as per the date

othrewise rajib will be punishbale for violating the austrailian contract law

Please give the Good Feedback (Thumbup )