Referring to the "Case Facts" below, what are the issues, parties, defences and remedies applicable to the scenario(s)? Can you advise all parties regarding all legal issues present in the case?

Case Facts: Vincent Vega is a residential real estate agent based on the Gold Coast. His employer, Marsellus Wallace of Wallace Agents Pty Ltd, has twice given Vincent the Agent of the Year Award due to his terrific sales records. Due to Vincent's reputation, Winston "the Wolf" Wolfe, a wealthy and infamous businessman, has appointed Vincent to sell his old Clear Island Waters mansion.

"Get this thing sold Vincent. It's like living in the sticks here, I'm moving back to LA," says Winston. "Sell the place for no less than $2.5 million bucks and don't forget to mention that there is going to be a stunning infinity pool overlooking the river and that there is direct boat access to the place". "Don't worry about the students from Bond I'm renting the joint to at the moment, they'll be out of there post haste." The students have an 18-month lease with Winston of which there are 6 months remaining.

Vincent puts the house photographs and swimming pool/boat details into his brochure and starts marketing the property. Vincent knows Winston Wolfe will not accept an offer less than $2,500,000 but thinks this will might look a bit pricey for this property, so in the advertisement Vincent puts in "OFFERS FROM $2.2 MILLION". Vincent also puts a disclaimer on the front of his brochure, but not on page 3-4 where the photographs of the proposed pool and description is included. He also conducts a title search and finds no record of the lease Winston mentioned and thinks to himself "probably because it is just a casual short-term arrangement with some students - not to worry."

Under instruction from Winston, Vincent also stated in all advertisements "walk through the backyard to your own private pontoon and berth (moorings) for your boat and jet-ski!" However, these have not been installed. Upon inquiry, Vincent learns that Winston does not have council approval for these either, only approval for the swimming the pool - which has not yet been installed.

There is a lot of interest in the property due to its Clear Island Waters location and many people book to attend the open house and inspect the property. Vincent is worried the students will have left the place in a mess (students he finds aren't the best at maintaining rental properties), so he telephones his boss, Marcellus to relay his concerns. Marcellus then telephones Winston Wolfe to discuss this. Winston replies "the matter shall be handled." Vincent is surprised to find that the property is sparkling, with no sign of the students. His is also shocked by the amount interest and doesn't have enough assistants to handle the number of people at the open home. During the open house two boys aged 7 and 12 get into the unfinished backyard, trip over a pile of tiles and fall into the hole where the pool is proposed to be built. The 12 year old boy breaks his right arm and leg. The 7 year old boy appears to be ok. An ambulance attends and takes both boys to the Gold Coast University hospital. 3 The parents are distraught and angry with Vincent and Winston. Vincent points out a sign at the entry that sates that children must be supervised by an adult at all times and that entry is at your own risk. Despite this incident, Vincent is happy with the turnout and hopes to find a buyer. Vincent calls Winston to inform him of how the first open house went. Winston says "Well Vincent, I need to move on fast. Look, I have a few big deals happening and I need cash quick. See if you can get cash unconditional".

That afternoon, Jules Winfield calls and offers $2M after seeing it on the internet. Vincent asks if he can pay cash in 30 days and Jules says he can. Jules then asks for more information and Vincent emails him the brochure. Jules Winfield replies by email saying: "What an amazing property, I can't wait to move in and the kids will love the pool".

Vincent replies: "Well, you need to sign up fast, we've had a lot of interest. The Gold Coast market is hot right now!" Vincent attaches the contract with the details of cash unconditional, settle in thirty days. Jules Winfield signs this, scans it and sends it back within an hour. Vincent heads over to see Winston and he signs accepting Jules Winfield's offer. Vincent then scans the completed contract and sends it back. Jules makes the deposit and the cheque clears.

Meanwhile, the Bond students are very unhappy they've had to move to a new house so quickly during their busy semester and find themselves living in a dodgy share-house in Robina. They were very clean and always paid rent on time. Two men came to the property, gave them their rental bond back and escorted them away.

Ten days later, Jules Winfield emails Vincent and says he has found something else and doesn't want to complete the contract. Vincent tells Jules Winfield that he is bound by the contract. Vincent doesn't tell Winston because he hates bad news. Another five days later, Jules emails Vincent and says he is having trouble raising the money and needs a thirty-day extension. Vincent decides he needs to ask Winston who is then furious and demands "I need that money now!" Vincent tells Jules that he needs to settle at the allotted time. Jules ails to settle on time and says that she doesn't have the money so even a thirty-day extension won't help. Vincent retains the deposit even though Jules demands it back. With Winston pressing him, Vincent decides to relist the property to find another buyer. Winston tells Vincent to take what he can get urgently. Two days later, local property developer, Esmarelda offers $1.9M cash unconditional and Winston accepts it straight away saying "Vincent we don't have time to negotiate! Hurry up". The offer is completed and Esmarelda takes possession thirty days later. Esmerelda is from Syndey and relocates up the Gold Coast to live in the property. She telephones Vincent and asks "where the hell is the swimming pool?" To which Vincent replies, "the image was just an idea of something you could include, not actually part of the property." Esmerelda isn't too happy with his response and states she will get back to him once she has thought things through. Winston Wolfe pursues Jules Winfield for the difference between the $2M offer and the $1.9M paid by Esmarelda (minus the deposit which he has already retained). Esmarelda needs somewhere to moor her yacht she is also brining up from Sydney, so she speaks with the Gold Coast City Council to obtain the necessary permit to install a berth and pontoon. She is enraged when council inform her the water level is too low in that particular area and that she will not be getting approval.

At the rear of the property, there is a wooden boardwalk which backs onto the lake. This covers the entire width of the back yard and continues through Butch's property through to a park. The park can be accessed by the street, but also via the waterfront boardwalk. During the sale process, Vincent told Esmarelda that the current owner walks through there to the park all the time as there is an easement. Esmarelda has young children and does not want them on the street, so she thinks the easement is great, as it will guarantee future access to the park for her children. During the settlement, Esmarelda's solicitor explains there is no access easement registered. Esmarelda said not to worry, she just wanted the house pronto. However, when she moved in she found that Butch has put a fence up (council approved) blocking all access. Esmarelda asks Butch to take the fence down or put a gate in it so her children can get to the park. Butch is old, hates kids and tells her impolitely to go away. At this point, Esmarelda is getting very frustrated. Her new home has so many problems and she is very stressed as she is a single mother going through a divorce, which is why she and her children moved to Queensland. Fortunately, she has a friend, Mia, who is an excellent real estate agent. Mia agrees to help her out and market the property, charging "mates rates" for commission. Esmerelda signs all the paperwork and official appointment of agent forms required, but notices there is no inclusion of any special discounts in the agreement. During the marketing campaign, Esmerelda's husband (Alexander), instructs his lawyers to put a caveat over the property as it was purchased with their joint-bank account. He expects to see some money back in the divorce and if he cannot get the money, aims to take the property. 5 Mia then returns to Esmerelda and explains, "Wow have I got great news for you! I've found a buyer who is willing to make an offer of $1,880,000. I know this is $20k less than what you paid, but at least you will be out of this mess. What do you say?" Esmerelda is thrilled her friend Mia has pulled through for her in her time of need and says she'll accept the offer and signs the contract. The solicitor representing the buyer, Rodger Slick, telephones Mia and states: "You've gotta be joking right? There's a caveat on this property. My client rescinds their offer and will not be proceeding any further. Good day." Mia reports the bad news back to Esmerelda who is ropeable that the buyer has pulled out of the deal. Mia then hands Esmerelda a bill for the marketing fees incurred for listing the house thus far, which Mia refuses to pay. While reviewing the above issues, Marsellus has contacted you for further advice. The advice relates to an earlier development site at Coolangatta worth $11 million. Over the years, Marsellus has become extremely busy with his other work and has forgotten about a parcel of land that he had acquired 20 years ago. Marsellus admits that he had neglected the property and is now worried about new circumstances which have come to light. It turns out Andrew and Megan have made a claim for adverse possession of the land against Marsellus. Andrew and Megan are claiming that Andrew has entered into the land 15 years ago. The land had a single dwelling house and he lived there maintaining the land, erected fencing, paid the rates, improved the house and also built sheds in order to operate his business. Megan entered into the property 2 years after Andrew and they have both been living in the property ever since acting as if they are the owners. Even the neighbours believe that Andrew and Megan are the actual owners as they have been having dinner parties and charity events on the land. Andrew and Megan have on occasion gone on holidays (the longest 2-3 weeks) but they don't believe this would have an impact on their claim. Marsellus would like your advice on this matter.

The following is the sample question maybe help

Question Four Roger owns Lot 3 that is absolute beachfront land near Burleigh Heads. In 2001 his m are Bill who owns lot 4 and Pamela who owns lot 2. These three lots were originally developed as an exclusive residential development 45 years ago when the area was virtually undeveloped. Burleigh Heads has now developed into a thriving and very busy tourist area. All three original purchasers Roger, Bill and (the prior owner of lot 2) Dolly entered into identical mutual covenants with each other to develop their land in specic ways. No document was registered on the freehold land register reflecting these covenants. The covenants included the following clauses: \"Any dwellingI house built must be built predominantly in brick. if a lot owner sells their land they will obtain a deed of covenant in similar terms from any purchaser in m of the other two lot owners. \" Dolly sold her vacant land to Pamela in 2008. Pamela is now the registered owner of lot 2. Prior to contracting to sell lot 2 Dolly gave Pamela a copy of the mutual covenants but Pamela did not sign any covenant. Prior to signing the contract Pamela points to the covenant and says to Dolly \"Don't worry, I understand what I have to do." In 2014 Pamela begins to build a wooden shack on lot 2. Roger is concerned this construction could devalue his property substantially. Advise Roger. SAMPLEIRAIC Is the contractual covenant enforceable against Pamela? Rules: The Covenant must '"touch and concern\" the land: u The covenant must either affect the land as regards the mode of occupation, or It must be such as per se, and not merely from collateral circumstances, affects the value of the land Rogers v M t In Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Pty Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board, the Court held the covenants touched and concerned the land of the covenantee because it converted the land from flood meadows to land suitable for agriculture and therefore affected the value of the land. There must be an intention for the covenant to bind successors in title: :- In the case of covenants made after 1 December m seems that Section 53 of the Property Law Act 19'.\" automatically implies the intention that the covenant is to run with the land, provided the covenant touches and ooncems the land of the covenantee o Covenant will bind successors in title - For covenants created prior to 1 December 19?5, under common law it was necessary to demonstrate that the oovenantor and covenantee, at the time of entering the covenant, intended the covenant to run with the land Application: On the facts it is arguable that the covenant \"touches and concerns\" the land. The covenant is restrictive as it allows only the construction of a \"brick dwelling house" on Pamela's land. The covenant's purpose would be to maintain the value of the surrounding properties [e.g. Rogers} to ensure that an \"eyesore\" is not constructed within their location. As the covenants intention is to maintain value {so value is not affected} then as per Rogers v Wand Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Pty Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board the covenant would \"touch and concern\" the land. On the facts, it is arguable that there was an intention for the covenant to bind successors in title. A t the time of entering the covenant, there would have been an intention that the covenant would run with the land to protect the market value of the surrounding properties. If the covenant was created prior to 1 December 1915 then at common law this would need to be proved and on the facts it can be. If the covenant was created after 1 December 19?5 then Section 53 of the Property Law act 19?5 automatically implies the intention that the covenant is to run with the land, provided the covenant touch es and concerns the la nd of the oovena ntee Conclusion: Based on the above, there is a contractual covenant. Roger should apply to the court for an injunction on Pamela to stop the construction of her wooden shack. Roger should then enforce the contractual covenant on Pamela to ensure that she only constructs a \"brick dwelling\