1. a. Variation in contract: 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 inwriting, one would need to understand the fact that for the contract to be correctly varied and it is essential that the contract be in writing. This means in essence that the variation be in writing (Yorston, Turner, and Fortescue, 1990). For a variation in contract requirement that a variation of the contract be 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 a 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 there 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 a 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 the 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? The court took the view that the subsidy was not a request, invitation or an inducement to purchase wool - would you agree with this?
There was nothing, they said, to suggest that the subsidy and purchase of wool were related, no quid pro quo. Governments can of course make contracts in the normal way - purchase of equipment, employment etc. But in this type of case, it may have been thought that this was an attempt to bind the government in a policy type of situation where flexibility was more important. c. Duress in contractDuress means committing or threatening to commit any act against a person’s will.
Duress is some element of force either physical or economic, which is used to override one party’s freedom to choose whether to enter into a particular contract or not. Such contracts are voidable at the insistence of the innocent party. In order to benefit from the doctrine of duress, the claimant would have to necessarily prove two essential points: