A contract is an agreement or promises. However not all promises or agreements give rise to a binding contract.

Contracts are legally enforceable agreements o r promises. Breach of contract is, therefore, failure to keep to the terms of s uch agreement. A legally enforceable contract can create by oral promise, simple contracts are required to be supported by the presence of consideration, and otherwise they wi ll be unenforceable. To be a legally binding contract, the contract must include the following elemen t,

An offer This is an undertaking by the offeror (i.e. the party making the offer) (@X) to be co actually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree (the party to whom the offer is made) (). An acceptance Once the existence of an offer had been proved, the court must satisfied that th e offeree has accepted the offer otherwise there is no contract.

Consideration In order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be mutual exchange between the parties. In Currie v. Misa (1875), the court defined consideration as some right (vQ), intere st (Qq), profit (Q) or benefit (Q) accruing to one party, or some forbearance (), (l`), loss (l) or responsibility (d) given, suffered or undertaken by the other Intention to be bound (to create legal relation) Presumptions in Domestic / Social Agreement Any agreement made between relatives or friends or spouses is presumed not inten ded to be legally binding (Balfour v. Balfour (1919)) unless the contrary to be proved (Merritt v. Merritt (1970)). In this case, there are has invitation to treat, which is an indication that a p ersons is willing to enter into negotiation only, Amanda advertise in the SCMP t o sublet the remaining 2 rooms is an invitation to treat, an offer is betty asks for rent one of the bedrooms and the acceptance is Amanda agree to accept to re nt to betty. The consideration of betty is pay rent and other miscellaneous char ges, the consideration of Amanda is let one of the bedroom to betty, the adverti se in the SCMP and betty rent a room through reading the SCMP and contact Amanda shows that there has a intention to create legal relationship according to the case (Merritt v. Merritt (1970), if the contrary to be proved, the presumption i n domestic/social agreement is not applicable, to be a legally binding contract, it must fulfill all of the elements. In the case, the consideration is not sufficient, according to (central property V. High Tree House Limited(1947)), some doctrine to operate, an agreement pre-e xist, the promise must be clear and unambiguous and By relying upon someones promi se, you have incurred expenses or other forms of detriment For the rent of a room of Betty, the promise is not clear and ambiguous, because there has no clear to state how many rent should betty and the miscellaneous ch arge is ambiguous because there has unlimited of type of miscellaneous charges, so that the consideration is not sufficient in this case. To concluded that this is not a legally binding contract and Amanda cannot sue b etty for the last two months rent and miscelleous charges and only gentleman agreeme nt is exist which is binding in honor, only moral obligation enforce. ?

There is frustration of the contract between Mr. Cheung and Super-meat. A contra ct can be said to be frustrated when an event occurs between formation and perfo rmance which is not the fault of either party; and can be regarded as striking a t the root of the contract; and is beyond what the parties contemplation. When supervening illegality of performance e.g. A contract, legal when m ade, may subsequently become illegal by a change in the law. The contract is per formance when the even occur, banned all the live poultry is not the fault of ei ther party and beyond the control of the parties, it cant imported live chicken is striking at the root of the contract. As the case meet all of the three require ment, so it makes a frictions between Mr. Cheung and Super-meat. As the result, the contract is void at common law and equity. To apply the LARCO , the court had discretion to allow a party who was incurred expenses before the frustrating event to retain or recover money to cover them, and where prior to frustration one party has received a valuable benefit, the court may order the p ayment of a just sum for it, because Mr. Cheung imported the live chicken from super -meat every day for one month already, Mr. Cheung have to pay the money for Supe r-meat which is gain the live chicken every day last month, the remaining of the supply of live chicken was frustrated by long delay until end the of the contra ct, so the remaining of the contract of supply the live chicken is automatically void. According to (Wong Lai Ying & Others v. Chinachem Investment Co Ltd [1979 ]) ? It will not regard as frustration, because frustration should be fulfill all of the rules, the case is not fulfill in this situation, because it is the fault of the party, because Super-meat promise that it had ways of bringing live chicken s from Guangdong province, it is the fault made by super-meat, because imported the live chicken from Guangdong is illegal, so the contract is unenforceable.