The formation of the contract begins with an offer. The person making an offer is called a “provider.” An offer is made if the supplier does something that would lead a sensible person, called a “supplier,” to think that the parties will have made a good deal if the bidder accepts the proposal. In this context, there could be an offer when a brother and sister tell another sibling that she will agree to divide an inheritance equally if the other sibling promises to give up smoking cigarettes, for example. A reasonable person in the position of the offeror (the smoker) would think that the siblings got a good deal if the bidder accepts the proposal. An aggrieved party cannot re-engage in a breach action if there is never a contract. The sola change estoppels theory may apply in certain situations to allow at least some recovery if no contract has been formed. Suppose a brother and sister promise her sister that he will share the estate money equally between them, and that the sister depends on that promise and builds a supplement to her house while waiting for the money. Suppose the younger brother does not distribute the money as he promised. There is no contract here because there is no offer. There is no offer because the promising siblings did not ask for anything in return (in return) for the promise. The sola change doctrine provides that a person who reasonably needs a promise and thus suffers some prejudice may receive money to compensate him for his loss. In this situation, a court could order the couple of promising siblings to pay an amount equal to the costs of his sister`s construction.
However, according to this theory, a court could not order the promising sibling couple to distribute the estate allowance fairly. The 1993 interim agreement was signed after “nearly two years” of negotiations and put into circulation by the parties after 20 draft agreements (paragraph 12). The purpose of the agreement was to encourage complainants to withdraw from joint ventures. The agreement also provides that, after each applicant leaves, interests in joint ventures are allocated to individual respondents and the companies they control. With respect to the sharing of the westcan project`s profits, the 1993 transitional agreement recognized that Hole Consultants Ltd. “will continue to participate in the benefits and receivables associated with the various existing and future contracts that include the Westcan project.” The agreement also provided that “the successor companies terminate and commit to paying the consultants a share in the profits related to these contracts for the period 28 February 1993, a fixed amount of USD 600,000.00.” The latest case of Hole v Hole, 2016 ABCA 34, poses a problem regarding the application of a contract between family members. In this case, the individual complainant, James F. Hole, is the owner of appellant, Hole Consultants Ltd.
Respondents own the following businesses: James D. Hole owns Hole Engineering Ltd; Jack Hole owns Kessa Holdings Ltd. Harry Hole owns Eloh Enterprises Ltd. and Douglas Hole owns 512725 Alberta Ltd. The individual applicant and the individual respondent are members of the same family. Jack Hole and Douglas Hole are the complainant`s sons, while James D. Hole and Harry Hole are the complainant`s brother and nephew, respectively.