Lily lives in Ballarat, Victoria and has recently completed her Bachelor of Business degree. She has been awarded a scholarship to complete an MBA at a reputed university in Denmark. To commence her studies, Lily must arrive in Denmark by 01 October 2021. However, before going overseas Lily has decided to marry her fianc, Kyle. They have chosen September 17 2021 to solemnise their marriage and to have reception party on 19 September 2021. Lily has also booked a flight departing for Denmark on 23 September 2021. Lily is under time pressure to organise everything for the wedding and preparing for her studies overseas. A week before the wedding, Lily and Kyle went to a local restaurant Paradise Dining to arrange their reception. They were given a printed menu and price list by James, a manager appointed just two days earlier by the restaurant. Lily and Kyle liked the venue and paid for the reception in advance. James issued a receipt to Lily and Kyle alongside a confirmation letter for their wedding reception. Three days later, on 13 September 2021, Lily received a call from James saying that as he was new to the restaurant, he erroneously presented an incorrect version of the menu and price list. Further, that the 3 current actual price would be 20% higher than what they had agreed. James apologised for the error but insists that unless Lily agrees to pay the revised price, that they would cancel the wedding reception. Lilly is very upset as she is unable to pay the additional 20% cost of the reception, and it is impracticable to find a new venue in such a short time. Further, all her guests have been notified of the venue through invitation cards that foreshadow the menu options which making any change difficult and expensive.

Required: Advise Lily and Kyle if the promise made by the Dining Paradise is binding under the Australian contract law. Do they have any remedy available under contract law to enforce it? Only refer to contract law in your response and do not explore statutory remedies in your answer. It is expected that you refer to relevant case law, in support of your answer