$**$Introduction to the Case:$**$

Sher v$.$ Bell $(1961)106$ CLR $41$ is a landmark case in Australian contract law, addressing the enforceability of contracts involving corporations and individuals. It examines whether a contract is valid if one party is a corporation and the other is an individual.

$**$Detailed Facts of the Case:$**$

The plaintiff, Sher, and the defendant, Bell, entered a contract for the sale of property, which wasn't executed as a deed. The contract stipulated completion within a specific timeframe, failing which it would terminate automatically. When the deadline passed without completion, Sher sought to enforce the contract. Bell argued the contract's lack of enforceability due to its informal nature and involving a corporation.

$**$Question of Law $($Legal Principle$)$ Involved in the Case:$**$

The central legal question revolved around the enforceability of contracts involving corporations and individuals, particularly concerning the need for formalities such as a deed. Additionally, the case addressed whether contractual terms, like the completion timeframe, could be waived by either party.

$**$Judgement of the Case:$**$

The High Court of Australia ruled in favor of Sher, holding the contract enforceable despite lacking a deed. It clarified that the involvement of a corporation didn't invalidate the contract. Additionally, the court determined that certain terms, like the completion timeframe, couldn't be waived by either party.

$**$Conclusion:$**$

Sher v$.$ Bell's decision has significantly influenced Australian contract law, establishing that contracts involving corporations and individuals can be enforceable without formalities like a deed. Moreover, it underscores that specific contractual terms, once agreed upon, cannot be unilaterally waived. This case has provided crucial guidance for parties entering contracts in Australia. Make sure their are no missing details