LAW1500 S2 2019 Problem-Based Question Issues of Jumping Jack v Fast track oils Itd: Jumping Jack Darcy, a racer for Fast Track Oils Ltd, has entered and won the 'East to West Rally,' a televised annual car rally from Brisbane to Toowoomba and was promised $750,000 prize money. But due to critical comments alleging that the race was 'stacked in his favour and the fact that he did not have the roadworthy certificate that was a condition of entry the company is refusing to pay him the $750,000 prize money. Jack has earned the money by winning the race but been refused his payment. Can Jumping Jack Use Promissory Estoppel to try and enforce the promise of winning the prize money? Relevant law to Jumping Jack v Fast track oils Itd: There are many elements to contract law that make a contract enforceable. Contract law is a form of law that is bound to making and enforcing promises and agreements. There are many elements to contract law and these are the offer, the acceptance, consideration, mutuality of obligation, competence capacity and a written element that bounds the contract (Business and company law, 2017). A valid offer is where you indicate with your words and actions that you will offer something to another with reasonable boundaries and an acceptance of the offer is where you meet and accept the requirements of the offer. Within contract law there are many different categories that help make the contract enforceable such as, reasonable notice, undue influence and mistake. Reasonable notice states that "if a statement is not contained in a written and signed contract it will only be an express term of the contract if both parties had reasonable notice of the statement", so if there is a statement that was brought up by one of the parties after the contract was written and signed it will not be an express term. In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971), states that "Thornton drove his car to a car park. Outside the car park, the prices were displayed, and a notice stated cars were parked at their owner's risk. An automatic ticket machine provided a ticket, a barrier was raised, and Thornton parked his car. In small print on the ticket it was stated to be issued subject to conditions displayed on the premises. On a pillar opposite the machine was a notice stating the owners would not be liable for any injuries occurring on their premises. Thornton had an accident and sought damages from Shoe Lane Parking", but there had not been reasonable notice, only after he payed the ticket was there a disclaimer on the ticket therefore not making it possible for Shoe Lane Parking Ltd to rely upon the