Richard Anderson is a talented chemist at Cube Laboratory Pty Ltd. Under his guidance, the lab had been particularly successful in attracting research grants and government contracts. His five-year contract with the lab was due to expire on 30 June. In late February he was “sounded out” by headhunters for the chief chemist’s position at a rival lab. Taking this job would require Richard to relocate his family interstate, his wife needing to find a new job and his children changing schools. On 1 March, Richard approached Warren, the chief chemist at Cube, and told him about the discussions he had held with the headhunters. Richard said: “It is a good offer, Mr Warren. But I’m rather avoid the disruption for the wife and kids and stay here.”    Warren replied: “Richard, you are an important part of this team. You’ve played a big part in our recent success and we’re keen to keep that going.” Richard formed the impression from this that Cube intended to extend his contract for the next five years. He said that that was “great” and immediately telephoned the headhunters and knocked back their proposal. He then returned to work with Cube and did not raise the matter again. On 25 June, Warren took Richard aside and told him that, because of a “slight liquidity” problem, Cube was retrenching large numbers of staff and was forced to “let him go”. Richard looked unsuccessfully for work in a depressed market for chemists until finally found a position at a university, but at a fraction of the salary he was earning in private practice. However, his wife still has the same job and his children still go to the same school.Advise Richard fully whether he has any claim against Cube.  

15marks Australian law