Contract Law Case Study

Introduction
Jane, Jerry and Sam is attempting to launch proceedings against NAP for loss rising from cancellation of the competition outlined in the question. The plaintiffs’ actions would depend on whether there is a breach of contract by NAP. It is essential that key facts come under close scrutiny and are considered in relation to contract law. In order to advise Jane, Jerry and Sam the application of the common law of contract will determine if a contract exists, terms of the contract and whether a breach of contract has occurred. In the event there is a breach the extent of damages to be awarded must also be considered.

Is there a contract?
In order for Jane, Jerry and Sam to sue NAP a legally enforceable contract must be in place.

There are sign of executory consideration channelled through the exchange of promises. However, it is unlikely those promises would sufficed adequate consideration. It is also worthy to note the agreement only stands subject to the approval of the board of directors of NAP. In the question there is no mention of price or a service fee Apple Cider would pay NAP in return for promoting its products . Although practical benefit can be rendered as good consideration outlined in Musumeci v Winnadell and Williams v Roffey there appears to be no practical benefit.

Promissory Estoppel
Promissory Estoppel has the effect of making promises binding in cases where they are not supported by consideration. The doctrine cannot be used as a cause of action in itself as it does not confer or create new rights on the promisee but rather only operates to stop promisor form full enforcing previous rights against promise hence giving rise to being “a shield but not sword”.
For promissory estoppel to prevail the six point test must be considered as it was the case with Walton Stores v Maher .
1. Assumption of legal relationship between promise and