Law Case Study Analysis - Essay Example

?Law Case Study Analysis Law Case Study Analysis UK Law of Offer and Acceptance The law of "offer and acceptance" determines whether an agreement does exist between two parties. The nature of an offer An offer is considered as an expression of willingness showed by two parties involved to form a contract on specific mutual agreed terms, which is made with an intention that the offer will become binding in nature as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it (G.H. Tretel, The Law of Contract, 10th edn, p.8). The term "expression" can be defined as the different forms such as newspaper, email, letter, fax, and conduct; till the communication is based on the mode of communication for which the offeror is ready to contract. The term "intention" is defined objectively by different judges of the courts. In the case of Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 lays an emphasis on the fact that the important thing in any offer is not the real intentions of the parties involved but instead important thing is the reasonable view of the person regarding the situation. Revocation of offer An offer can be revoked by the offeror prior to the acceptance of the offer; but this must be communicated to the offeree. But it is not necessary that the offeror needs to communicate the revocation. In case the offer was made by the offeror to the whole world, the offeror need to revoke the offer in a similar form. This was evident in the legal precedent of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal. But, in case the offer has been turned into an option, then the offer cannot be revoked by the offeror. In case the offer is in the form of an unilateral offer, the contract can be revoked by the offeror any time. There is just one exception to this situation, which is that the offer cannot be revoked in an unilateral offer if the parties have entered in an ancillary contract which have guaranteed a non-withdrawal of the contract Communication of Acceptance The different rules which deal with the communication of the acceptance are as follows: v The acceptance of the offer must be communicated to the offeree: as per the construction of the offer/contract, the acceptance may not come till the notification of the fulfillment of the conditions put forward in the contract is done (legal precedent of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal). But even in this case, the acceptance must be communicated. The offer can be withdrawn, prior to the acceptance of the offer. v The offer can be solely accepted by the offeree only, i.e.the party which receives the offer offer was made. v In case the offer is accepted by someone else in the family or business on the behalf of the offeree without his/her authorization, then the offer cannot be considered as binding v Silence on an offer cannot be considered as an acceptance of the offer. This is evident in the legal precedent of Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037. Counter-offer and correspondence The "mirror image rule" within the law of offer and acceptance, the offer needs to be accepted by the offeror or offeree without any modifications. If there are any changes which are done in any way to the offer, then the counter-offer with changes kills the original offer and the latter cannot be accepted by any of the parties in future. This is evident in the legal precedent of Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334. The Case Presented Tom chooses to put up for sale his car by parking it outside his residence with a note on the windscreen mentioning: "For auction, exceptionally excellent state, single owner complete service history, complete MOT, ?5,000 or nearby offer. Please get in touch number 37 or telephone 9911929 only." On Tuesday morning around 9.00am, Dick sees the car, but as he is behind schedule for work he is incapable to stop and call Tom at 10.00am and makes an propose of ?4,750 which Tom says he will think about. Harry was crossing through Tom's house on Tuesday morning around 11.00am, saw the car and called at the residence but Tom was not there, on the other hand Tom's son Chris was in and Harry left a message mentioning: "Monday 11.05am. Kindly reserve this car for me. I attach a cheaque for ?5,000, Harry". Chris left the message on the writing table in Tom's study." On Tuesday afternoon, Tom makes a decision to agree to Dick's offer and dispatch's a letter at 2.30pm to Dick's office address mentioning: "I am in agreement to sell the car to you, but for the reason that of the lower price you have presented can you please pay the whole amount in cash?" At around 4.30 on Tuesday Tom reads Harry's receipt and instantly calls Dick's office address, leaving a communication on the answer machine mentioning: "pay no attention to the letter you will take delivery of - deal off, Tom." Dick is out of station on a business deal and will be able to hear the message on Wednesday evening. Legal Precedents Nevertheless, a simple call for for information about the conditions of the offer is not a counter-offer and leaves the offer unbroken: Stevenson v. McLean (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 346. Stevenson v. McLean (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 346 case was heard by the bench of the High Court- This case came under the contract law of UK under the Bench Division regarding the set of laws on communique of receipt by telegraph. Its way is different from the postal rule. The plaintiff in this case was a merchant dealing in iron goods and used to buy iron to put up for sale to different vendors or third parties. Defendant in this case was a warrants’ owner for various amounts of iron goods. The communication was made through telegram on September 27, which was a Saturday. The Defendant D presented to put up for sale iron to Plaintiff in the original offer for an amount of 40s in nett cash and offer was kept open till September 29. On the morning of September 29, plaintiff had communicated to defendant through telegram inquiring whether Defendant (D) is going to agree to the amount offered for delivery for a time period of more than two months, and in case not, highest limit you would permit [348] (P's telegraphic enquiry). Defendant did not act in response to the communication and soon after that day trades all warrants to some other party. Defendant made a communication through telegram to the other party on September 29 at 1.25 pm directing that all the warrants available have already been sold. Previous to getting that message, Plaintiff had already sent another telegram to Defendant at 1.34pm where he has advised him to accept the offer. Plaintiff consequently took a legal action against Defendant for the violation of contract and non-delivery of the warrants for iron goods as agreed in the contract. Legal issues of the case were: 1. Whether Plaintiff P's telegraphic enquiry comprised of a counter offer which has resulted in putting out the original offer of the defendant. 2. If the choice in the case of Cooke v Oxley 3 T. R. 653 bears any outcome of letting McLean who is the defendant in this case, to cancel the offer to put up for sale aforementioned and then to the acceptance of the offer by the Stevenson, Jacques, and Co. who is the Plaintiff 3. there existed a query which was associated to the second issue which was if the telegram sent by the defendant at 1.25pm efficiently canceled the original offer, in spite of which, it was not being acknowledged by Plaintiff P until after Plaintiff had gone though the acceptance of offer. It was held by Lush J that the telegram sent by the plaintiff at 9.42am cannot be considered as offer refusal, but only a simple question about whether the conditions could be customized. Even though McLean was at freedom to call off the offer prior to September 29 was over, it was not actually effectual until and unless the communication reaches the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant was charged by Lush J an amount of ?1900 which he needed to give to plaintiff as compensation and was subject to any further decrease by subsequent ruling. It may perhaps be likely to outline an enquiry such that it adds to the conditions of the agreement while maintaining the original offer active. According to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Sec. 2-207(1), An exact expression of acceptance or a on paper confirmation of an unofficial agreement may comprise of a legitimate acceptance even if it states conditions additional to or different from the offer or unofficial agreement. The supplementary or different provisions are taken as offers for addition into the contract according to UCC Sec. 2-207(2). Between merchants, such provisions turn out to be element of the contract unless: v the offer specifically restricts acceptance to the conditions of the offer, v material modification of the contract outcome, v Notification of protestation to the extra/different terms is specified in a logical time after notice of them is received. Postal acceptance rule As a rule of expediency, if somebody accepts the offer by post, the contract comes into survival at the minute that the acceptance was posted. This rule simply relates when, impliedly or clearly, the parties have in consideration post as a means of acceptance. It leaves out contracts concerning land, letters wrongly addressed and immediate modes of message. A person who is offering may perhaps pull out an offer at any time prior to acceptance happens: Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463- The defendant presented to put up for sale his residence to the claimant and assured to keep the offer open till Friday. On the Thursday the defendant accepted an offer from a third party to buy the home. The defendant then requested a pal to inform the claimant that the offer was withdrawn. On hearing the information, the claimant went round to the claimant's home first thing Friday morning claiming to agree to the offer. He then brought an action looking for particular performance of the agreement. Held The offer had been efficiently canceled. Consequently no agreement existed between the parties. There was no compulsion to keep the offer open until Friday in view of the fact that the claimant had gave no thoughtfulness in swap for the promise. Now if consider the above mentioned case of Tom selling his car, in the case Tom gets an offer of ?4,750 from Dick. Tom decides to go ahead with that offer therefore dispatch a letter. although Tom dispatch's a letter to Dick's office address mentioning that he is in agreement to sell the car to, but for the reason that of the lower price he have presented, he has to pay the whole amount in cash, but according to precedent mentioned in the Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 case Tom has all the rights to withdraw the contract before its acceptance by the Dicks. As according to Postal acceptance rule "if somebody accepts the offer by post, the contract comes into survival at the minute that the acceptance was posted. This rule simply relates when, impliedly or clearly, the parties have in consideration post as a means of acceptance. It leaves out contracts concerning land, letters wrongly addressed and immediate modes of message". Therefore when he calls the business office of Dick and leaves a message for cancelling the deal, at that time Dick has not accepted the offer therefore the deal gets cancelled. Now since no deal has happened so far, Tom has all the rights to sell his car to anybody whomsoever he wishes. Also as Harry is offering a better offer to Tom, he has all the rights to get in touch with him regarding the offer. Therefore we can conclude, even if somebody made an offer, before the acceptance of that offer, the offerer has all the rights to cancel it anytime. But if it would have happened that Dick has accepted Toms offer of ?4,750 before leaving a message on the answering machine, in that case Tom would have bound to go ahead with that as that becomes a legal Offer as per UK Law of Offer and Acceptance statement. References E.Lawresources (NA). Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463. [Online] Available from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Dickinson-v-Dodds.php. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] E.Lawresources (NA). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire (1866) LR 1 Ex 109. [Online] Available from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Ramsgate-Victoria-Hotel-v-Montefoire.php. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] E.Lawresources (NA). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal. [Online] Available from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Carlill-v-Carbolic-Smoke-Ball-Co.php. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] E.Lawresources (NA). Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552  Privy Council. [Online] Available from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Harvey-v-Facey.php. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] E.Lawresources (NA). Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421. [Online] Available from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Partridge-v-Crittenden.php. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] 4LawSchool (NA). Contracts Law: Offer and Acceptance. [Online] Available from http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts101/offer.htm. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] Catharine MacMillan and Richard Stone (2012). Elements of the Law of Contract. University of London. [Online]. [Acessed 14th December, 2013] Read More