FACTS

Bilal was contacted by a TV Production company about a new position of Producer that they were advertising.

In the email that the CEO sent to Bilal, the company asked about his availability and qualifications.

Bilal responded by email the same day indicating that he met the qualification requirements, was interested and available.

Bilal was then contacted by the Human Resources department and told that he was 'just the person' they were looking for. The company told Bilal they would pay for his relocation costs from Sydney to Melbourne.

On the basis of that discussion, Bilal declined the lucrative position he was considering in Sydney and arrived in Melbourne. He preferred to live in Melbourne because most of his extended family was located here.

He opened his email when he arrived in Melbourne (his email had not been functioning for the last week properly as his inbox was overfull and he had been too busy to have it fixed).

An email had been sent by the company one week ago but due to the malfunction of his inbox Bilal was only able to read it now. The email indicated that the position Bilal had come to Melbourne for was no longer available. Bilal was extremely upset and told the company that they had breached the contract Bilal had agreed with him.

The company stated to Bilal that in their view that no written contract existed. They admitted that there had been some oral discussion and email exchanges but denied that any contract was made between the parties.

The company indicated that if Bilal wished to worked for the company a more junior position, then the role of 'assistant' producer was available. The pay and hours were much less than the original position.

Bilal wants to sue the company for breach of contract. The University claim no contract ever existed.

Please advise Bilal whether or not a contract existed between him and the company and what defences that company might put forward.

QUESTION: i need to use a ruling listed to support my case in my assignment however im not sure which case or ruling applies to this particular case i feel like none? here is the cases provided for me to choose from:

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke BallCourt of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401 [1953] EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427
• Crown v Clarke High Court of Australia (1927) 40 CLR 227
• Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183
• Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353
• Hamilton v Lethbridge [1912] HCA 20; 14 CLR 236
• Ballantyne v Phillott [1961] HCA 17; 105 CLR 379