You should be prepared for the fact that when exam questions are set on the topic of consideration, such questions often also require a discussion of equitable estoppel (such as the question below). The two topics overlap significantly and you need to understand the circumstances when equitable estoppel might arise as a live issue on the facts, and when equitable estoppel might step in to provide a remedy to someone who has no remedy under contract law principles. Raj owns a gym in Brisbane. During the pandemic, Raj ran into financial difficulty, as he had to shut the gym during the numerous lockdowns. Raj also lost many members during this time. Raj decided to try and break into the online fitness trend. Raj's intention was to provide a set of high quality workout videos that could be used by members and anyone who wished to buy an online subscription for the service. Due to the financial difficulties he'd experienced, Raj was not able to borrow any money from the bank. However, his uncle was willing to lend him 530,000 based on the business proposal Raj put together, and Raj accepted his uncle's generous offer. Raj was making good progress towards his online venture, but was experiencing further financial difficulty concerning the physical gym business. Three months ago, Raj asked his landlord, Kyra, whether she would be willing to reduce the rent to help him out so that he might be able to keep the business running. The existing lease was for a period of 10 years and Raj was only three years into the current lease, which is $4,000 per month. Kyra is cautious about losing a good tenant and she says that she is willing to lower the rent to $2,000 per month "for a while", to help Raj out. Since Raj asked for the reduction in rent, the online business has taken off and is doing very well. In contrast, the gym itself is not doing so well and the number of members has steadily declined, even since the lockdowns eased. Last week, Kyra became aware that Raj's online business is doing well and says that she is now requiring Raj to pay the normal rent moving forward, and that in light of the rapid success of the online business, she is seeking back-payment for the three months' reduced rent, totalling an additional payment of $6,000. Raj explains to Kyra that the businesses are separate and that she promised him to lower the rent and that he would not be paying the difference in rent for the past three months. He tells Kyra that "legally, the backpayment for the difference could not be claimed from him"