V Greek Orthodox Community Of Sa Inc

1. CITATION. Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. [2002] HCA 8; 209 CLR 95; 76 ALJR 465; 187 ALR 92 (7 March 2002) 2. COURT. HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FULL COURT GAUDRON, McHUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE and CALLINAN JJ ERMOGENOUS, Spyridon APPELLANT v GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC RESPONDENT 3. BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS. [1] The appellant alleged that he had been employed by the respondent since 18 March 1970 but had not received any entitlements to annual leave or long

(Duperouzel 2014). According to the general rule of acceptance, the acceptance is effective immediately when received. Once the acceptance is communicated to the offeror, the acceptance is effective and the agreement is reached. The case of Entores Ltd v

obtain damages, the remoteness of damages needs to be determined based on whether the defendants negligence was a necessary condition of the plaintiffs loss. As was shown in Overseas Tankship (UK)Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2) ) 1966 2 All ER 709 and Metrolink Victoria Pty v Inglis 2009 VSCA 227, the damage must not only have been a direct consequence of the negligent act, but also have been reasonably foreseeable. Nevertheless, in this case, Dylan changed his job four

this earlier case. Application of Presumption in Ermogenous v Greek orthodox Community of South Australia The Ermogenous case is a good example of how the “intention to create legal relations” has not been formerly understood or implemented by lower courts in Australia. The appellant Ermogenous came from abroad to take up the role of archbishop for the respondent the Greek Orthodox Church. The appellant ministered the needs of the community for 20 years. He received accommodation and a wage which

A) Is there a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip? Offer For there to be a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip, two factors must be present, these factors are and offer and acceptance. An offer can be defined as a willingness to enter into a bargain and in doing so does justify another person an understanding that his/her assent is invited and will conclude the bargain. Heydon JA suggested that an offer must ‘take form of a proposal for consideration

NOT in final form MASTERS V CAMERON (no contract until conditions met) Implied intention: Social (friends), family, domestic, voluntary  NO INTENTION BALFOUR V BALFOUR (husband & wife- no agreement) COHEN V COHEN WAKELING V RIPLEY (seriousness- big sacrifice) TEEN RANCH PTY LTD V BROWN (voluntary- no claim worker’s comp) ERMOGENOUS V GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC (treated like employee- could claim) Commercial/ business  INTENTION ROSE & FRANK COMPANY V JR CROMPTON & BROS LTD (agreed

1. Infrastructure, building and construction contracts often contain so called “termination for convenience” provisions, operating independently of breach, default or frustration. Termination of a contract has been considered as the legal consequence of certain kinds of breach, repudiation or frustration. Frustration is automatic. Breach and repudiation arise where default has occurred. 2. Provisions for termination at the convenience of, or at the will of the contracting parties, or any one