Ilac example answer

Who is the plaintiff/respondent?

Explain how the cases you have mentioned above apply to the question. Sometimes it will be necessary to show both sides of the argument i.e. the arguments the different parties will use to have the dispute (issue) resolved in their favour.

Application/Analysis/Argument:

(Most marks are given for this section. It is a demonstration of your understanding of how the cases apply to the facts of the ILAC).

If the agreement between the parties is of a social, voluntary or domestic nature, the courts will presume that the parties do not intend to create legal relations (be legally bound). This legal principle was originally developed in Balfour v Balfour , where the courts found there was no binding contract when a man promised to pay his wife a regular maintenance (income), because the matter was domestic (family) in nature. In this hypothetical the agreement is between Trudy and her Granddaughter Patti and Patti’s husband Keith. They are clearly relatives so this agreement is of a domestic nature and prima facie (on the face of it), the presumption that there was no intention to be legally bound by their agreement will apply. However, the courts will allow the presumption to be rebutted if the consequences are serious as in the following cases. Comment by soeadmin: Very brief explanation of case/legal principle then connected (applied) to the facts of the hypothetical. Comment by soeadmin: Case/legal principle -applied to the given hypothetical. Comment by soeadmin: Rebuttal of legal principle.

In Todd v Nicol the courts allowed the presumption to be rebutted due to the serious consequences of reliance on promises made. In both cases, the court looked at the seriousness of the consequences for the plaintiffs’ if the promises were broken. The court believed that consequences such as quitting their jobs, selling their house/terminating leases, selling their furniture, buying travel tickets and leaving their country of origin based on the relative’s promise was serious enough for the presumption of not being legally bound by a domestic agreement to be rebutted. Comment by soeadmin: Underline your cases to make them stand out for the marker, and use multiple references (cases) when possible. Comment by soeadmin: Rebuttal – showing both sides of the argument. Comment by soeadmin: Reasoning of the court. Comment by soeadmin: These ‘extra facts’ from the quoted cases are only required when the cases are very similar on point (and thus explain how). Otherwise you can just cite a case(s) (place case name in brackets after sentence) as support for the relevant legal principle.These are very similar cases so can be applied together.

Here, similar to Todd v Nicol, Patti and Keith have left their jobs, sold their house and moved half way across the world to Australia based on their elderly relative’s (Trudy’s) promise, and were then evicted after family disputes arose. Like the give ILAC scenario, in Todd v Nicol the elderly had promised the individual plaintiffs that if they moved to Australia to live and look after them, they would be rewarded with considerable benefits, such as the promise of free housing and help with emigration and finding jobs. Therefore it is most likely that the courts will accept the seriousness of the significant commercial consequences (cost and inconvenience) if Trudy is not bound to keep her promise. Thus it is likely to allow the presumption of ‘no intention to be bound in domestic agreements’ to be rebutted in this case, as it is more of a commercial nature with significant consequences involved. Comment by soeadmin: Application to the given hypothetical scenario. Further demonstrates the facts that are very similar and why the cases should be applied. Comment by soeadmin: Brief link to conclusion, which could be included here or in conclusion itself.

Hints to students for developing a Conclusion:

Come to a conclusion of what you think the court is likely to decide based on the cases discussed in your application. Do not ‘sit on the fence’, you must try to make a firm conclusion i.e. what is likely to happen.

· A good way to start your conclusion part of the answer would be: ‘On the balance of probability, it is likely that ….. ‘

· Give a brief summary of how your application applies the legal principles to answer the legal question posed by yourself at the beginning.

Conclusion:

On the balance of probabilities, the Queensland Supreme Court will most likely find that there was an intention between Trudy, Patti and Keith to be legally bound by their promise, and thus a binding contract exists between them. It is likely that Trudy will be legally bound to honour her promises and will be required to purchase Patti and Keith the house on the beach as promised or pay them an equivalent amount of money, and also pay for their living expenses until they find jobs. Comment by soeadmin: Start your conclusions in this manner and the marker will give you 0.25 marks in each ILAC assessment – just for showing that you know it is a civil case.Tutors will continually remind students of this type of information at workshops.This is not plagiarism and we expect to see it in your answers in this format – free marks on assignment and exam for writing these words … consider it another form of attendance marks and reward for reading this document – it is an introductory law course and we are trying to provide you structure. Comment by soeadmin: Why is it the Qld Supreme Court – because it is in the Qld jurisdiction and very, very likely to be > (greater than) $750, 000.Include the name of the court if you have a monetary value or if you can reasonably determine which court it will be lodged (i.e. Here we can guess that it is the Supreme Court – house on the beachfront dispute. If you can find a house on the Gold Coast beachfront for less than $750 000 let me know and I will buy it!). Comment by soeadmin: Also, include the likely outcome or remedy that they will seek (at this stage in general terms as above).

Scenario (2) Continued from the facts above… A week after Keith and Patti had moved into their new house, they went shopping and saw a 46 inch, high definition plasma TV in the window of ‘Amazing Hi Fi’, for only $1,500. They were so impressed with the price that they walked into the store and told the sales assistant that they would immediately buy the TV in the window. On closer inspection the sales assistant realised the price was wrong and told them it should be $2,500. He apologised and asked them if they still wanted the TV at the proper price. Keith and Patti were not happy, and insisted that the store sell them the TV at the advertised price.