Group work Joe told Tanya the contract for the sale of his house in Brisbane (to Tanya) had been signed. Tanya responded: "OMG, I am so excited to finally own my own home! I am going to quit my job in Sydney right now, terminate my lease agreement, sell all my possessions and say goodbye to my friends in Sydney. See you in Brisbane soon!!" Joe lied, although he was planning to sign it, he subsequently got a better offer for his house and decided not to sell the house to Tanya. Advise Tanya of her legal rights (if any).PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL As a result of Joe's unequivocal REPRESENTATION (Waltons; Legione v Hateley) that the contract for sale of land had been signed, Tanya adopted an ASSUMPTION (Waltons, W v G) that it was safe to start performing under the contract. As a result, she REASONABLY (Legione v Hately) RELIED (Beaton v McDivitt) on the representation, believing that she was now a home owner, to act to her own DETRIMENT (Mobil Oil v Wellcom; Waltons) by quitting her job, ending her lease, selling her possessions etc. And it would now be UNCONSCIONABLE (Waltons v Maher) for Joe to rely on his strict legal right (that all contracts involving land must be in writing - Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 54A(1)) to deny the existence of the contract given that he KNEW (Giumelli v Giumelli) his statement INDUCED Tanya to start performing under the contract and failed to stop her from acting to her detriment (ACQUIESCENCE: Waltons v Maher). CONCLUSION: I would advise Tanya that, although there is no legally binding contract due to a problem with the Consideration (not in writing), that the contract is likely to still be treated as ENFORCEABLE by a Court of Equity and that she is likely to receive a remedy of PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL