Where there has been a breach of contract, the innocent party can sue for damages including, where relevant, damages for the lost opportunity under the contract. In Principal Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club Limited [2017] QCA 254, the Queensland Court of Appeal has considered a scenario where the opportunity to earn a profit under the contract was affected by various contingencies and where there might ultimately have been a loss instead. The Court has addressed the question of law, namely, whether an innocent party to a breach of contract can suffer a compensable loss even where, had the contract proceeded, that party might have lost money.

It is elementary to the law of contract that a binding contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer by the respective parties. In the recent decision in Queensland Phosphate Pty Ltd v Korda [2017] VSCA 269, the task for the Court of Appeal was to determine whether, on the facts, such qualities existed in light of an exchange of emails. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance, when seeking to create a binding contract through informal means, of not leaving too much to guess-work.

Where one has a purported deed or a ‘heads of agreement’ type of document, when might that document be binding and when might it fall short for lack of formality? The Victorian Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Nurisvan Investment Ltd & Anor v Anyoption Holdings Limited [2017] VSCA 141 has provided some guidance, and the decision is of note for the way in which it uses evidence of post-contractual conduct in ascertaining the identity of parties to an agreement.

A person may apply to a court for an injunction in order to prevent threatened or actual and ongoing infringement of that person’s legal rights. When hearing an application for an injunction, most courts have jurisdiction to award damages instead of, or together with, an injunction. The Queensland Supreme Court has recently provided some guidance regarding the circumstances in which a court might do so.

Disputes regarding retail tenancies are typically the exclusive province of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Victoria in the recent case of AMJE Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 777 held that the Court possesses jurisdiction in circumstances where, turning on a point of statutory interpretation, the plaintiff had made a claim that was not in fact a ‘retail tenancy dispute’ in the strict sense.

The question of whether a price for something includes or excludes GST is an issue that arises in contracts from time to time. Such was the dispute between the parties in A & A Property Developers Pty Ltd v MCCA Asset Management Ltd [2016] VSC 653.

The Victorian Supreme Court has recently refused to grant an interlocutory injunction that would have had the effect of requiring specific performance of a contract. In addition to giving persuasive reasons for doing so, the decision in Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin & Anor [2016] VSC 591 more broadly represents a useful illustration of the principles to be applied when considering an application for an injunction.

The Court of Appeal recently considered the effect of rescission and, in particular, its quality as an equitable remedy. The case of Gutnick v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd [2016] VSCA 5 shows how a judicial declaration of rescission can help a party seeking restitution.