A representation was made by Tom to Ron, and it was made in such a way that Ron was induced to act upon it, and also made a verbal assurance on the same. There is hence prima facie ground for understanding that the verbal assurance was also a term in the contract, even if it was only a verbal assurance and not part of the actual agreement Ron and Tom entered into. So in this context Stan will be entitled to repurchase the property because of his direct agreement on repurchase with Tom and Tom’s verbal agreement with Ron.
In the given situation, it is hence concluded that Stan will be able to claim his property back. His agreement with Tom has to be honoured by Tom. Similarly, Tom has a verbal agreement with Ron, with a clear intention stated by Ron that he will fulfil Tom’s legal obligations to Stan, so Ron is bound to fulfil this term even if it was not expressly stated in the agreement.