Regarding the reported decision of:

oOh! Media Roadside Pty Ltd (formerly Power Panels Pty Ltd) v Diamond Wheels Pty Ltd & Anor (2011) 32 VR 255.

2. Analyse this case having regard to the following question:

In oOh! Media Roadside Pty Ltd v Diamond Wheels Pty Ltd, the Victorian

Court of Appeal found that the contract was not frustrated. Would a

proponent of relational contract theory support this decision or is it

better explained with reference to the tenets of classical contract

theory (will theory)?

This question asks you to engage in a critique that identifies whether

the decision is consistent with the expectation of the court’s role as

held by proponents of relational contract theory or whether the decision

is better supported by the principles underpinning classical contract

theory (will theory). You are expected to engage in an explicit

discussion of theory in your analysis with reference to the judgment to

support your response to the question.

3. Structure your critical case comment as follows:

An introduction, clearly setting out your response to the question with a brief summary of your argument

A ‘Case Note’ which includes:
Case citation
Brief summary of facts
Brief summary of procedural history
Brief summary of the ratio decidendi (as it relates to frustration)

Critical Analysis
This should include a summary or explanation of the relevant
theor(ies)/perspective(s) as it relates to the question. You must also

use the relevant tenets of the theory/perspective to critically analyse

the judgment; including explicit reference to the judgment to support

your argument.

Conclusion
A brief summary of your response to the question, which is consistent with, and drawn from, your discussion.
Note well – the critical analysis is the most significant to the skills