Practical case study: Chloe v Con You are one of the owners of Bistro 24, a restaurant located in one of the most popular laneways in Melbournes CBD. People travel from all over Victoria to indulge in your Instagrammable food and drink. You are keen to engage a popular social media influencer to promote Bistro 24, as you have heard that this can dramatically increase patronage of the restaurant and profits for the business. You have not tried this business strategy before, and you are concerned as you have seen some recent news reports and blogs about a Victorian case where a caf owner was sued by a social media influencer. You want to know more about the potential legal issues before you go ahead. The news reports and blog you have read include the following: Cafe Ordered to Pay $1,676 After Deal with Instagram Influencer Ends in Tears Why an Oral Contract Just Isn't Good Enough Instagram Influencer Wins Money from Melbourne Cafe After Promotional Deal Sours If you havent already done so, please read the news reports and blog. You may also wish to listen to the following episode, from the ABC's 'Law Report' podcast, which discusses the case: 'Social media influencer wins case against client after verbal contract breaks down' (this is optional). The case was heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). You also decide to read the decision, available here: Roberts v Con Katsiogiannis Legacy (Civil Claims) [2019] VCAT 645 (6 May 2019). Reflecting on the case, consider the following questions: What was the dispute between the parties? What form was the contract in? What are the potential drawbacks of this form of contract? What were the express terms of the contract? What terms were implied by the Tribunal? Could the Tribunal consider implied terms based on custom or trade usage? What should business owners and social media influencers do in the future to protect their positions? Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favour of Chloe. Do you think that the Tribunal reached a fair decision?