Unlock eSignature Lawfulness for Contracts in Australia with airSlate SignNow

How to eSign a document: eSignature lawfulness for contracts in Australia

[Music] [Music] this important case is one of the key cases clarifying that modern equity law in Australia is first and foremost the law of unconscionability the case involved a shopping center development in Nara by Waltons on land owned by MA the deal was quite a complex one and required MA to demolish existing buildings and to build a new building for Waltons completed by a certain date there were a number of matters to clarify before the contract was formally signed including the design of the new building Marr started to demolish some of the buildings on the site and he continued to press Walton's to sign the contract he really had to start demolition because if he waited until Walton signed the building would never be complete by the due date Waltons however were reviewing their retail strategy and they were no longer sure they wanted the contract they didn't tell ma this though they let him continue on as though the contract signing would be a formality ultimately they tried to withdraw claiming correctly that there had never been a signed contract Marr sued the High Court found that in these circumstances Waltons was as stopped or prevented from going back on its promise to sign and be bound by the contract but the judges were very careful to say that merely saying you intend to sign a contract doesn't commit you to anything the real question is whether it would be unconscionable for you to walk away so it wasn't the Waltons changed their mind it was that they did so slyly leaving ma to continue spending money on a contract that was never going to happen justice Brennan said an estoppel was established if one the plaintiff assumed that a particular legal relationship then existed and that the defendant would not be free to withdraw from that legal relationship to the defendant had induced that assumption or expectation 3 the plaintiff acts in reliance on the assumption or expectation for the defendant knew were intended him to do so 5 the plaintiff will suffer detriment if the assumption or expectation is not fulfilled and 6 the defendant has failed to avoid that detriment in this case Marr expected that there would be a contract Waltons induced him into that assumption and he acted by spending money on demolition which was the detriment Waltons did nothing to avoid that expenditure so they were liable [Music] you [Music]