Problem 1:
Under contract of sale dated April 30, 2013, the purchasers, Chris and Marie, agreed to purchase a two bedroom home unit from Simon, the vendor. Max was the conveyancer acting for the vendor. Completion date was June 15, with time the essence of the contract.
Due to problems in obtaining finance, Chris and Marie phoned Max’s office on June 8, requesting a week’s extension of the completion date. Max was not available but the secretary said “I think that will be alright, but I’ll get instructions.”
On June 16, Chris and Marie received a letter from Max advising that the contract had been rescinded. The following day, Max refused a tender of the purchase price from the purchasers.
1. Advise Chris and Marie as to whether they may require the vendor to sell them the property?
In this case, the contract of sales date April 30, 2013 between Simon, the vendor, and the purchasers, Chris and Marie had been rescinded by Max, the conveyancer acting for the vendor on June 16, because the purchasers had failed to make their payment at the completion date of the contract on June 15 as time is the essence of this contract. But Chris and Marie wants the vendor to sell them the property without rescinding the existing contract based on the argument that Max secretary have made a promise of approving their request on extending the completion date for a week. We are asked to provide advice to Chris and Marie whether they may require the vendor to sell them the property?
This question is about promissory estoppel and it involves the case example of Legione V Hateley [1985] HCA 11.
In this case, Max does not make any promise to the purchasers and there was no representation from Max that they can disregard the completion date. Furthermore, Max secretary does not make any clear and unequivocal promise to the purchasers as well, the statement made by Max secretary is purely her own opinion where the extension might be granted but the secretary did made a clear that she will needs to get further instruction from Max on that. Therefore, it is not possible for the purchasers to raise a promissory estoppel to stop the vendor from rescinding the contract.
In conclusion, Christ and Marie will not able to raise the promissory estoppel in order for the vendor to sell them the property.
2. Would your answer be any different if the purchasers had spoken to Max personally and were told “No problem, I know the vendors are in no hurry”, while in fact he had obtained no instructions from them on the matter.
Yes. If the purchasers had spoken to Max personally and were in fact received a clear promise from Max, the purchasers would able to give raise of a promissory estoppel to stop Max from rescinding the contract and the vendor would require to sell them the property according to the contract of sale. Even Max had obtained no instructions from the vendors, as the conveyancer for the vendor, Max would have the authority to act on behalf of the vendor itself.

Problem 2:
Roger is in business selling high level office equipment. The following events took place:
1 May: Roger was speaking to his brother, Andy, who has an office in Sydney, about a new printer that Roger had in stock.
Andy: “How much is it?”
Roger: “The lowest price I would consider is $1000.”
Andy: “I’ll take it.”
Roger: “OK, you can have it for $1400.”
Andy: “But you said $1000. We now have a contract for that price.”
Roger: “We don’t have a contract. The price is $1400. I only have one in stock, but I’ll give you first option at $1400 if you let me know in person by 6 May.”
2 May: Andy told his friend, Maria, that he intended to buy the printer. Later that day, Maria told Roger that Andy intended to buy the printer.
3 May: At 1:00pm, Roger, forgetting his conversation of 2 May with Maria, offered to sell the printer to Jim for $1300. Jim replied “If you don’t hear from me by 5:00pm today, you can assume I accept”.
Roger did not respond to this. Jim did not contact Roger again that day.
At 4:00pm, Roger sent an email to Jim promising to also give Jim a large quantity of free paper if
Jim agreed to buy the printer. Jim read that email at 6pm.
4 May: Roger changed his mind about selling to Andy. As he could not contact Andy by telephone, Roger telephoned Maria and asked her to tell Andy that Roger would no longer sell to him.
5 May: Maria told Andy that Roger did not want to sell him the printer. Andy was not sure whether to believe her.
Andy phoned Roger agreeing to buy the printer. During their conversation Andy said:
“1. We had a contract for the printer at $1000 on 1 May;
2. If not, then we had a contract for the printer at $1400 on 2 May;
3. If not, then we now have a contract for the printer at $1400.”
Roger is confused and seeks your advice.
Advise Roger whether he has a contract to sell the printer to Andy or Jim.

There are four parties to the case which is Roger, Andy, Jim and Maria. On 1 May, Roger is trying to sell Andy his printer and Andy assumed that Roger is having a contract to sell him the printer while some communication better Roger and Andy is communicated through Maria. On 3 May, Roger forgetting his conversation with Maria about his offer to Andy, offered to sell Jim his printer and Jim is assumed that Roger is having a contract to sell him the printer since Jim does not come back to Roger after 5pm. Roger changed his mind to sell Andy his printer on 4 May and informed Andy about his revocation of offer through Maria but Andy still insist that Roger has a contract with him to sell the printer on all 3 occasions. We are asked to advice whether Roger has a contract to sell the printer to Andy or Jim.

This question is about Invitation to treat, method of acceptance, termination of offer, communication of acceptance and involve case examples of Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552, Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463, Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523.
We will first examine whether Roger has a contract to sell the printer to Andy.
On 1 May, the first statement made by Roger on the lowest price he will consider for selling the printer is $1000 was not an offer but merely a statement of the price; therefore there is no contract between Roger and Andy on 1 May, as the statement is merely an invitation to treat according to Harvey v Facey.
On 2 May, Through Maria, Roger had received the message that Andy is intended to buy the printer at $1400, but the acceptance is not communicated to Roger by Andy himself. As Roger had prescribed the method of acceptance to be communicated in person, Andy acceptance is not sufficiently complies with the term of the offer. Therefore there is no contract between Roger and Andy on 2 May.
On 4 May, Roger changed his mind about selling to Andy but he could not contact Andy by telephone but had informed Maria to tell Andy that he is to revoke his offer offered on 1 May. Maria had informed Andy about Roger revocation on 5 May before Andy is able to accept the offer, therefore there is no contract between Roger and Andy on 4 May, since the revocation of offer had been communicated to Andy through a reliable source which is Maria according to the case of Dickinson v Dodds.
Therefore we can conclude that Roger has no contract to sell the printer to Andy.
Secondly, we will examine whether Roger has a contract to sell the printer to Jim.
On 3 May, 1:00pm, Roger had made an offer to sell the printer to Jim for $1300. Jim replied that If Roger does not heard from him by 5:00pm, Roger can assume that he is accepting the offer. Jim does not come back to Roger after 5:00pm. In this case, Jim silence is sufficient as an acceptance according to the case of Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd, because Roger action of sending Jim an email on 4.00pm that promised to give large quantity of free paper if Jim agreed to buy the printer implied that Roger had waiver the requirement of Jim to communication his acceptance.
In conclusion, Roger does have a contract will Jim to sell his printer and has no contract with Andy.