Essentials of the Modern Law of Contract - Essay Example

? LAW OF CONTRACT By Mr. Pete is bound by a contract to fulfill what he has written out in his business website. For this has led to his customers (Stuart, Lyn and Richard) acting accordingly to buy tickets. By definition under the law, a contract is an agreement or a promise which is legally binding or enforceable by law. Sir William Anson, a jury defined a contract as a “legally binding agreement between two or more parties”, by which one or more parties acquire rights to act or forbearances on the part of the other or others. Thus, the law of contract imposes an obligation on every person to honor his legally enforceable promise, failure to which he is liable to compensating the injured party or otherwise account for his conduct (Richards, 2007). In all this, the intention of enforcing agreements through contracts is to boost commercial relations, since commerce generally involves individuals or personal interaction; and the obligation imposed by a contract is, in general, created by the parties themselves. This makes one accountable for his/her promises, and ensures that they deliver such promise within the ambit of law (Richards, 2007). As it stands, Pete on putting on his website that it is “The shop that never sleeps” is intended to create the picture of an operating system whereby all customers’ needs are acted on promptly with zeal. In the face of law, this will not be taken to be a twenty four hour business, but within the working hours, it operates with an efficiency that will guarantee customers satisfaction. Any service below this mark can prompt the customer to seek legal action (Stone, 2009). On the same note, Pete put on his website that he has four tickets for Dob Bylan concert at a total price of €100 for each ticket. He goes further to say that the tickets will be sold to the first person placing an order with him. This amounts to an offer, to anyone who has €100 per ticket to buy. It puts Mr. Pete on legal obligation to sell those tickets to anyone who has €100 without choosing the highest bidder because the contract puts it clear that “the tickets will be sold to the first person that places an order with him.” By definition, an offer is an expression of ones willingness to enter into a contract on specific terms, as soon as the terms are accepted. The person making the offer in this case is known as the offeror whereas the one who has been addressed to is called offeree. Mr. Pete has made an express offer since he has specifically made his intentions known to the offeree(s) through writing (MacLntyre, 2010). An offer is very different from an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat can be termed as a mere invitation to make an offer and no contract can result from it alone. A good example is afforded by the display of goods in a shop or supermarket. From all the decided case so far, the display of goods only amounts to invitation treat, not an offer. The offer is made at the point whereby the prospective buyer approaches the shop attendant or cashier, by picking up the goods and expressing the desire to buy those (Stone, 2009). Here, is a case to explain this: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V. Boots (1953). The defendant has self service store in which certain listed drugs were displayed on shelves. It was illegal to sell such drugs unless the sale was under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. A customer selected some of those drugs from the shelves. The defendants had placed a registered pharmacist on duty at the cash desk near the exit, not at the shelves. The defendants were charged with the offence of listing drugs without supervision of a registered pharmacist. It was held that if the sale took place where the customer picked up the drugs, from the shelves, the defendants would be liable, but if the sale took place at the cash desk where the pharmacist was located, then the pharmacist would be liable (Richards, 2007). To Pete’s side the contract is executed on his part, since he has brought forward the specification that will trigger him to let him allow those tickets to change hands. What remains is for the prospective buyers to place orders with him, for the contract to be complete. The communication from the buyers will seal the contract if done in the right way, by each of the customers. The communication will show the acceptance of the customers to buy the tickets. For the contract to be enforceable between the parties, each of the parties namely Stuart, Richard and Lyn, he has to first ensure that neither of them is an infant, that they are all of sound mind and the capacity to enter into a contract. Otherwise, the contract will not be enforceable in law. In order to be in a capacity to enter a contract one should not be a minor (less than 18 years old), and be of sane mind. Any contract entered into with an insane person is void and hence cannot be binding (MacLntyre, 2009). Of great concern is the legality of the concert. The buyers of the tickets should have a full understanding of the concert, and if prohibited, they should not proceed since they cannot recover damages in case of any breach (MacLntyre, 2009). Acceptance with respect to contracts is an accent to the terms of the offer. It corresponds with the terms of offer. Richard on seeing the notice immediately posted a letter on Saturday evening at about 10pm. According to law of contracts, acceptance by post is effective as soon as the letter of acceptance is put in to the postal box; immediately a binding contract is created between the parties. Sometimes this is referred to as posting rule. This is an exception to the general rule that an acceptance is effective only when it is actually received by the offeror. The rule is so that even where the letter of acceptance is delayed by the post or by the offeror, the contract thereby created is not affected (Stone, 2009). A case to explain this is brought forward: Adam V. Lindsel (1818) On September 2nd, the defendants in this case wrote to the plaintiff offering a given amount of wool on specific terms and wanted an answer in the course of post. The letter was misdirected and reached the plaintiff on September 5th, in the evening. On the very night, the plaintiff posted a letter of acceptance, which was received by the defendants on September 9th. The defendants had expected a reply by September 7 and had in the meantime resold the wool to third parties on September 8th. The court was to determine whether a contract had been made between the plaintiffs and defendants before September 8 when the wool was made. It was held that on September 5th when the letter of acceptance was posted is when the contract was sealed; therefore, the defendant acted in breach of contract when they resold the wool to third parties on September 8th. Mr. Pete was bound to understand that by putting the details of the concert tickets on the website, whoever posts a letter to place an order the contract will be created at a time of posting. Denning L., in a case said “when one makes a contract acceptance by post according to the common law countries such an acceptance is only complete when the letter of acceptance is put to the post box, and this is the place where the contract is sealed”. For Stuart, sending an email to say that he wanted the tickets at the price of €110 per ticket, was binding and sealed a contract. Furthermore, Pete had replied immediately to say that the tickets are for Stuart unless no more offers which now symbolizes a breach of the original agreement. Mr. Pete should have released the notice immediately indicating that the tickets have changed hands and now belong to Stuart. On reply, Stuart informs Pete that he no longer wants the tickets. This shows that Stuart has finally decided to revoke the contract, which had already been sealed. This breach amounts to Pete pursuing a court action to recover damages, if he had not revoked it by himself. Stuart would have a case to answer because he had finally agreed to enter into the contract. Lynn had left a message about 10 pm on Saturday evening saying that she wanted the tickets for €100. Any communication through electronic means, a phone call or an e-mail to confirm a contract is legally binding. It is Pete’s negligence that has led to the delay of confirmation because Lyn had used “one of the available means” to communicate the need to buy tickets from Pete. As in the case of Entores Ltd V. Miles Far East Corporation (1995), the plaintiffs made an offer from London, by telex to the defendants through their agent in Holland. Acceptance of the offer was communicated and received by the plaintiffs on their telex machine in London. The court had to determine whether the contract was made in London or in Holland. It was held that since communication by telex was almost instantaneous, the contact was concluded in London. Pete was to understand that the contract was made on Saturday evening irrespective of the place where the Lyn was at that time. Conclusion This case of Pete shows mix up of business in this order. On Saturday night at 10pm, Pate entered into a contract with Richard. It is the same time that Lyn had left a message indicating that she wanted the concert tickets. This too is a binding contract then follows on Monday by Stuart sending a mail to confirm that he also wanted the concert tickets. For each of the above people, Pete has breached the contract at each stage and is bound to pay damages to each since the revocation of the agreement was not done in good faith. Furthermore, Pete had indicated that this business never sleeps, so we expect reach him by all means that are available to customers. They will be on a keen monitoring process, conveying any information brought forward immediately. At this point action is promptly taken to safeguard the needs of a customer. Thus, Pete had a case to answer. For Stuart, breaching this contract is not expected after he had affirmed that he wants the tickets. Pete can pursue a legal action and tell the court that he suffered set back due to Stuart’s action of rejecting the tickets even if he had indicated that the tickets were not available. Likewise, Pete has a case to answer incase Stuart decides to pursue a court action saying that Pete broke an agreed contract by writing on the company’s website that the tickets are not available. References Richards P., 2007. The law of contracts. 2nd edition. New York: Pearson International Stone R., 2009. The modern law of contract. 7th edition. New York: Taylor & Francis MacLntyre E., 2010. Essentials of business law. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill Read More