現在，第一個次要問題是，斯坦和湯姆簽訂的合同中，回購原則是否也適用於羅恩，也就是說，羅恩是否一定要出售他沒有簽署的合同?現在根據澳大利亞合同法，合同的存在需要滿足一些基本要素。首先必須有一個提議和接受。對羅恩來說，這是必須遵守湯姆和斯坦之間的協議。斯坦沒有向羅恩提出收購要約，羅恩也沒有接受。同樣地，每一當事方都沒有任何訂立協議的考慮，他們也不打算建立如南澳大利亞最高法院埃魯爾和埃魯爾訴奧克斯案(1972)3 SASR 377所述的法律關係(默示或直接)。和羅恩的法律關係僅限於湯姆，而不是斯坦。所以Ron沒有義務把房子賣給Stan。他的法律義務只與湯姆有關。湯姆和斯坦有法律上的義務嗎?是的，湯姆已經簽了一份合同，很明顯他同意把房子再賣給斯坦。現在湯姆也讓羅恩知道了。奧斯卡國際象棋有限公司對威廉姆斯和迪克·本特利產品有限公司對哈羅德·史密斯(汽車)有限公司的丹寧勳爵說:
“如果一個表示從合同在交易的過程中誘導對方採取行動的目的,實際上,誘導他採取行動,通過進入合同,這是初步推斷,它的目的是作爲一個保修(術語)。沒有必要把它說成是抵押品。只要它打算被執行，而且事實上已經被執行就夠了”(McKendrick, 2012, p.302)。
The primary issue is that of whether, Stan the owner of Torrens Title property who sold the property to Tom on a contract reflecting the re-purchase agreement, purchase the property from Ron, after Tom has sold it to Ron?
Some of the sub issues to be addressed here is that of whether the contract Stan signed with Tom with the re-purchase principles also applicable to Ron, meaning is Ron bound to sell by a contract that he was not party to?
Yet another issue is of whether Tom was right to sell the property to Ron for his business reasons when he had an outstanding re-purchase clause to fulfil with Stan after the Tamworth International Country Music Festival was over?
Finally, Ron has given Tom a verbal assurance that he will fulfil the contract that Tom has signed with Stan, so does this verbal assurance suffice in the legal context.
Rules and Application
Now the first sub issue is that of whether the contract Stan signed with Tom with the re-purchase principles also applicable to Ron, meaning is Ron bound to sell by a contract that he was not party to? Now according to the Australian Contract Law, there are some essential elements to be satisfied for a contract to exist. Primarily there must be an offer and acceptance. For Ron, it is to be bound to the agreement between Tom and Stan. Stan has not made an offer of purchase to Ron, and Ron has not accepted the offer. Similarly, each party do not have any consideration to conclude the agreement, and they do not intend to create legal relations (implied or direct) as presented in the case of Ellul and Ellul v Oakes(1972) 3 SASR 377, Supreme Court of South Australia. Any legal relations to Ron has restricted to Tom, and not Stan. So Ron is under no obligation to sell the property back to Stan. His legal obligations are only with Tom. Now does Tom have any legal obligations with Stan? Yes, Tom has signed a contract and has clearly agreed to resell the property back to Stan. Now Tom has also made Ron, aware of it. Lord Denning in Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams and Dick Bentley Products Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd stated,
“If a representation is made in the course of dealings from a contract for the very purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it, and actually inducing him to act upon it, by entering into the contract, that is prima facie ground for inferring that it was intended as a warranty [term]. It is not necessary to speak of it as being collateral. Suffice it that it was intended to be acted upon and was in fact acted upon” (McKendrick, 2012, p.302).