Scientists at Tasmanian Agricultural Research (TAR) hope to develop a vaccine to prevent viruses being transmitted from humans to sheep. The industry has been suffering from COVID-19 type viruses infecting livestock herds. To assist their research, they want to conduct research on some sheep and other livestock.

Brian and Bethany are sheep farmers in Oatlands, Tasmania. Due to recent virus transmission, stock prices have fallen and Brian and Bethany are wondering what they should do with their land and sheep. They decide to lease to TAR four acres of land for five years. This land would be used to house the sheep on which the new vaccine is being tested.

Brian and Bethany agree to sign a contract prepared by TAR lawyers. The contract gives TAR exclusive use of the four designated acres of land. In turn, TAR promises to use the land only for agricultural research purposes, and not for profit-making. TAR will pay $1 per year to Brian and Bethany for the right to use the land over the five years. TAR will also acknowledge Brian and Bethany by naming any successful vaccines after them.

One year into the contract, prices for wool and meat have risen dramatically. Brian and Bethany would like to end the contract and take their land back. They believe there was not really a contract between themselves and TAR, since the rent was only $1 per year, which indicates a simple friendly arrangement rather than a binding contract.

Brian and Bethany seek your advice as to whether they can claim there was no contract? In your answer, please refer to relevant case law and/or legislation.