What are the issues in the following case? (Issue 1: Mia's Verbal Contract; Issue 2: CAVEATS ). Please use IRAC formula toaddress specific issues. The SAMPLE IRAC is provided in the picture in the end.

Case Facts:

Esmarelda is 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.

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.

Question Four Roger owns Lot 3 that is absolute beachfront land near Burleigh Heads. In 2001 his neighbours 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 reecting these covenants. The covenants included the following clauses: \"Any dwelling house built must be built predominantly in brick. If a lot owner sells their laid they will obtain a deed of covenant in similar terms from any purchaser in tam 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. SAMPLE IRAC Issue: Is the contractual covenant enforceable against Pamela? Rules: The Covenant must "touch and concern" the land: I 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 o 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: 0 In the case of covenants made after 1 December 1975 it seems that Section 53 of the Property Law Act 1974 automatically implies the intention that the covenant is to run with the land, provided the covenant touches and concerns the land of the covenantee o Covenant will bind successors in title 0 For covenants created prior to 1 December 1975, under common law it was necessary to demonstrate that the covenantor and covenantee, at the time of entering the covenant, intended the covenant to run with the land Application: 0n 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 covenant's 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. 0n 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. lfthe covenant was created prior to 1 December 1975 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 1975 then Section 53 of the Property Law Act 1975 automatically implies the intention that the covenant is to run with the land, provided the covenant touches and concerns the land of the covenantee 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\