Joe and Donald had been colleagues and friends working at the Singapore University

College ("SUC") for several years. In 2021, Joe was invited to give a speech at the SUC

50th Anniversary celebration by Donald, who had become the provost of SUC.

SUC had offered to pay Joe $60,000 for giving the speech. The contract stated that the

speech would be for a duration of 60 minutes. There was also a requirement in the

contract to attend a rehearsal one week before the celebration. Joe signed the agreement

without negotiating on his fees because of his friendship with Donald.

During the rehearsal, Joe happened to be chatting with Hillary, one of the panelists

invited for the panel discussions that was to be held after Joe's speech. Joe found out that

Hillary was being paid $75,000 for her role on the panel. The amount of time allocated

for each panelist was 30 minutes.

Joe was surprised and confronted Donald about his lower fees. Donald brushed Joe off

and commented that there was a contract in place. Joe informed Donald that he would

not be attending the celebration after all.

Required:

Advise Joe on the following:

(a)

State ALL the elements required to form a valid contract.

(b)

Whether there was a valid contract between Joe and SUC since Joe and Donald

were friends before the contract for the delivery of the speech was entered into.

(c)

Whether there was a valid contract between Joe and SUC since Joe's fees of

$50,000 appears to be much lower compared to Hillary's fees of $75,000.

Support your answers with all relevant case law. You do not need to discuss terms,

conditions, warranties and innominate terms for this question.