Katie runs The Delicious Dumpling Pty Ltd (Delicious Dumpling), a dumpling stall in the food court at Westport Shopping Town, located in Williamstown Melbourne. Delicious Dumpling was a hit from the moment it opened in early 2012. So much so in fact that Katie was required almost immediately to modify the premises to allow for the installation of two additional cash registers. Katie asked her nephew, Eyo, a professional carpenter, to build a counter on which the two new registers could be placed. Eyo told Katie it would be his pleasure to help his Aunt and her new business in any way that he could and that "a contract was not necessary". Katie provided all the necessary materials and Eyo built the counter in less than 2 days, during which time he consumed a lot of dumplings which he was not charged for. In the middle of 2015 the takings of the business approximately halved. This decrease in sales coincided with the opening of another stall in the food court, Scrumptious Dumplings Pty Ltd (Scrumptious Dumplings), which also sells dumplings as well as Vietnamese street foods. Delicious Dumpling operates in premises leased by Oliver from the Westport Shopping Centre. Oliver sub-leased the premises (a sub-lease is a lease granted by the tenant to another person) to Katie for a period of ten years (commencing 1 February 2012). Katie was originally prepared to pay no more than $2,500 per month for the sub-lease. However, Oliver convinced Katie to agree to pay $3,500 per month by orally promising Katie that she would not face competition from other dumpling stores (this promise is not contained in the sub-lease agreement between Katie and Oliver). Oliver correctly noted that $3,500 was a fair rent with this protection from direct competition in place. In addition to making the aforementioned promise, Oliver showed Katie his lease with Westport Shopping Centre, which contained the following clauses: 23. The Tenant is permitted to sell dumplings and only dumplings from the Premises. 24. The Landlord promises that no other Tenants will be entitled to selling dumplings or similar products. Clause 24 was inserted at Oliver's insistence. Such a clause does not form part of the standard contract on which Westport Shopping Town grant leases to food court premises. In late 2011, Oliver become aware that none of the lease agreements with the other food stall owners restrict the foods that can be sold from the premises. This was one of the reasons he decided to retire and find someone interested in sub-leasing the premises rather than engaging in a legal battle with Westport Shopping Town to enforce cl 24. In late 2014 Oliver became aware that Scrumptious Dumplings would open in the middle of 2016 but did not say anything to Katie. Also in late 2014, Katie was approached by Ha Noi Nums Nums Pty Ltd (HNNN). Doris, the owner of HNNN, offered to enter a franchise agreement with Katie that would enable Katie to sell the very well-known and popular HNNN Vietnamese street foods. As her dumpling business was booming at the time, Katie refused Doris' offer. Katie did not want to take her dumpling items off the menu to make room for the HNNN items. This decision made sense given that Katie believed she would not face competition from other sellers of dumplings. Having been rejected by Katie, Doris immediately approached Anna-Kat, the owner of Scrumptious Dumplings, who happily entered into the franchise agreement. As it turned out, the popularity of HNNN's street foods contributed to Scrumptious Dumplings' immediate success in stealing a significant share of business from Delicious Dumplings. Customers familiar with the HNNN product have flocked to Scrumptious Dumplings to buy the HNNN street food and, when doing so, have often sampled the dumplings offered by Scrumptious Dumplings. Katie organised to meet with Oliver as soon as the opening of Scrumptious Dumplings was announced (in early 2015). Katie told Oliver that the oral promise Oliver made formed part of the sub-lease and that if the promise was breached she considered that she was entitled to terminate the agreement, something she would do as a matter of principle if not commercial necessity. Katie's belief that the promise was a term of the sub-lease was incorrect as the sub-lease contained a clause that stated that the only binding promises Oliver made to Katie were contained in the sub-lease document. To avoid a dispute with Katie, and because he was concerned that he may struggle to find another person interested in taking a sub-lease of the premises, Oliver agreed to accept $3,000 a month in rent from Katie instead of the $3,500 specified in the sub-lease. Oliver believed that he could easily afford the reduction in rent and intended to honour his promise. In response, Katie agreed not to terminate the contract. However, in June 2015, Oliver overhead Katie boasting that she now knows thatshe had no right to make the threat and that she was lucky that Oliver was too nave to appreciate this. Oliver telephoned Katie immediately and stated that from 1 July 2015 he expected Katie to resume paying the monthly rent stated in the sub-lease agreement ($3,500 per month).

QUESTION ONE: In early 2013 Eyo asked to be paid for the carpentry work he undertook for Katie. Katie refused Eyo's request. Eyo has come to you for advice. He would like to know whether he could make a claim in restitution against Katie. Advise Eyo (10 marks)

QUESTION TWO: Katie has come to you for advice. She would like to know: (a) whether she has any statutory claims against Oliver in regards to the loss she has suffered since Scrumptious Dumplings opened; (20 marks) (b) whether she has any statutory claims against Westport Shopping Town in regards to the loss she has suffered since Scrumptious Dumplings opened; (10 marks)

(c) whether she can hold Oliver to his promise to reduce the rent from $3,500 to $3,000 per month (at this stage, Katie does not want to know whether she has a contractual right to hold Oliver to his promise). (15 marks