The paper "Business Law - Reasons for Termination of Contract" is a good example of a business assignment. While it is correct that a simple contract can be discharged by word of mouth even if the original contract was required by law to be in writing, one would need to understand the fact that for the contract to be correctly varied and it is essential that the contract is in writing. This means in essence that the variation is in writing (Yorston, Turner, and Fortescue, 1990). For a variation in contract requirement that a variation of the contract is evidenced by writing has given rise to further refinement between, for example, a variation to the contract or a change in the method of its performance requires that there be evidentiary support that is written for the formalization of the changes [Hartley v Hymans  3 KB 475]. b.
Consideration Consideration could be understood as being the third essential element of every valid contract. It is the bargain that supports the entire contractual relationship. The idea innate to the concept of consideration is that their contract would be formed for the fulfillment of a transaction that results in a mutual exchange of some type (Helewitz, 2007).
Often, consideration comes in the form of a mutual promise. One party will promise to do something if the other party does something. This can mean that a party promises to buy, and the other party promises to sell. Consideration, or mutual exchange, can be any sort of mutual exchange as courts do not generally consider the adequacy of consideration. A contract, however where one agrees to a performance or the fulfillment of a certain aim while the other party has to promise absolutely nothing will not be enforceable because there is no mutual consideration. This case involved a subsidy scheme to assist local manufacturers to remain competitive in their use of wool.
Plaintiff claimed to have made purchases of wool "in pursuance of the said agreement", during a period for which the government was unwilling to pay. Here, the announcements were not from commercial motivation but from a government trying to deal with the aftermath of war - public money is involved. To what extent is this important in explaining the decision?
Elliott, (1989): "Necessity, Duress and Self Defence" Criminal Law Review . p611.
LeRoy, M. R., and Jentz, G., (2009). Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. Cengage Learning, 2009. p142
Carter J and Peden E, (2005), The natural Meaning of Contract, Journal of Contract Law, Vol.21 No.06/58, p277
Poole J, (2005), Contract Law, Ed.9, Published by Oxford University Press p33-49
John Farrar, ‘Frankenstein Incorporated or Fools’ Parliament? Revisiting the Concept of the Corporation in Corporate Governance’ (1998) 10 Bond Law Review 142, 144
Helewitz, J. A., (2007). Basic Contract law for paralegals. Aspen Publishers. p87
Yorston, K., Turner, C., and Fortescue, E. E., (1990). Australian Commercial law. Law Book Publishing Company. p32-37
Dinkha O 2001: Determining duty of care: High Court finds that Sydney Water did not owe a duty in respect of an accident arising from works it performed 20 years earlier, Mondag Business Briefing Review, pp 125-128.
Hooper G 2009: Australia: The High Court on Negligence: Absolute Liability is Out- Reasonableness is King, PSF Journal, October 19, 2001
Aronson 2008: Government Liability in Negligence, Melbourne University Law Review Vol 42, pp 78.
Turano v Liverpool City Council unreported, District Court of New South Wales, at  per Delaney DCJ.