ASSESSMENT TWO A. ISSUES Given that Emma relied on information from the wrong page of the brochure while entering into an agreement with Richard, is the contract affected (whether valid, void or voidable) by the mistake of facts? Is the promise by George to let off Richard from paying the rent increase in the following year valid and enforceable despite the express provision in the lease? What was the effect of Richard’s counter-offer to the offer made by Tom to purchase the car at $18500? Is past consideration regarded as adequate and sufficient when determining the validity of a contract? B. LAW Doctrine of promissory estoppel In contract law, it is a general rule that where a party to the contract makes a representation in form of a promise to another party relating to the contract, such party is restrained from reneging regardless of nonexistence of consideration (Jill, 2012, p. 148). The doctrine was espoused in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130. It requires of the promisor to honour a unilateral promise he made to the promisee who is not required to pay consideration from in certain circumstances. It was accepted as part of Australian contract law in Walton’s Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387. Brennan J listed the essential elements of an action for promissory estoppel as below; i. that the plaintiff implied or expected existence of a legal relationship whereby the promisor will not go back on his promise ii. such assumption was