English court hierarchy - Essay Example

Law Part I - English Court Hierarchy Civil Courts Part I - English Court Hierarchy Criminal Courts Part II - Contract Thereare two main questions that need to be asked and answered in this case; (i) whether Edward's acceptance of David's offer is binding on David, and (ii) whether David's revocation of his offer is effective against Edward. An offer is made when a person makes a definite promise to do or to abstain from doing something and it becomes binding when it is accepted by whom it is addressed to. An offer may be either verbal and written. In this case, David's action by writing to Edward on 1st December offering to sell him a range of office supplies would constitute a written offer. An acceptance is where the offeree indicates his assent to the offer by words or conduct. The general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the person making the offer1. If the person making the offer prescribes the specific manner in which the acceptance must be conveyed, then the acceptance must follow such prescribed manner2. David had not indicated in his offer of the manner that the acceptance is to be conveyed and as such Edward's action of writing to David on 14 December accepting his offer would tantamount to a valid acceptance. Communication of acceptance is binding on the offeror when the acceptor puts his acceptance in a course of transmission to the offeror in such a manner that is beyond the acceptor's control. When Edward puts his acceptance letter in the post at 3.00 p.m. on 14 December, this would tantamount to an act of communicating his acceptance to David of his offer. Once the acceptance letter is in the post, it is no longer within Edward's control and the Postal Rule would be applicable in this case i.e. where acceptance by post is an appropriate and reasonable means of communication between the parties, then acceptance is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is posted, even if the letter is delayed, destroyed or lost in the post so that it never reaches the offeror3. The postal rule applies to communications of acceptance by cable, including telegram, but not to instantaneous modes such as telephone, telex and fax. It is submitted that acceptance by Edward of David's offer is completed upon Edward putting the acceptance letter in the post. However, the facts of the case also state that David had in fact revoked his offer to Edward by sending him a telegram at 3.00 p.m. on 14 December. A revocation is one of the ways to terminate an offer and it is the withdrawal of an offer before acceptance. The offer may be revoked by the offeror at any time until it is accepted. However, the revocation of the offer must be communicated to the offeree. Unless and until the revocation is so communicated, it is ineffective4. When David sent a telegram to Edward at 3.00 p.m. on 14 December, this would tantamount to an action of communicating the revocation of his offer to Edward in a manner that is beyond David's control and in the case of telegram, as mentioned above, the Postal Rule would also be applicable. In this case, both communication of acceptance and communication of revocation were sent at the same time and on the same date. The issue would be which of these two would prevail. It is submitted that this would depend on which communication would come to the knowledge of the intended party first. If the acceptance so communicated by Edward comes to the knowledge of David before Edward knows that David has sent a revocation notice, Edward's acceptance would be binding on David. On the other hand, if the revocation notice so communicated by David reaches Edward before David knows about the acceptance, David's revocation notice of the offer would be effective against Edward. Part III - Tort Speedy-Fit's potential liability for the injuries suffered by Jennifer, Toby and Molly would depend on whether it can be established that Speedy-Fit owes a duty to take care5 and that the injuries suffered by the victims was caused by breach of Speedy-Fit of its duty. The burden of proving existence of such duty, its breach and injury caused by the breach would be on the plaintiff. For the case of Jennifer, as Speedy-Fit is a company providing services to cars it has a duty to ensure that the cars that it services is in a safe condition to be driven on the road and by failing to properly secure one of the wheels, Speedy-Fit has breached this duty. On the facts of the case, it could not be said that Jennifer had contributed to the injury. As regards to the injury and damage suffered by Jennifer in consequence of the breach of duty by Speedy-Fit, the fundamental rule is that the injury and damage must not be too remote a consequence of the accident's conduct6. In this case, the injuries suffered by Jennifer and damage to her car can be argued as not being too remote and the cost for medical treatment and repairing the car is foreseeable. As for Toby's case who died when his car collided with Jennifer's car in the accident, there are two types of claim that can be brought against Speedy-Fit and these are estate claim and dependency claim. Dependency claim would be brought by his wife, Molly. Whereas an estate claim would be brought by either executor or administrator of his estate depending on whether Toby died leaving a will or without a will. Whatever claim that could have been brought by Toby against Speedy-Fit in relation to the accident that caused his death will now be vested in his estate (section 29 of the Administration and Probate Act 1956). It can be argued that Speedy-Fit owes a duty of care to ensure that the cars they service are safe in such a way that the cars will not cause injury to other road users. By failing to properly secure one of the wheels, it can be argued that Speedy-fit had breached this duty of care. As to the damage caused from this breach of duty i.e. the death of Toby is not too remote as a consequence arising from this accident. As for Molly's case, Molly being Toby's wife at the time of Toby's death caused by the accident would entitle Molly to bring a dependency claim against Speedy-Fit. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (c. 30) allows relatives of people killed by the wrongdoing of others to recover damages. The same line of argument with respect to breach of duty of care causing death as used in Toby's case above would also be applicable. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (c. 30) allows claims of economic loss (section 1), bereavement claim (section 1A) and funeral expenses (section 3(5)). Molly would therefore be claiming against Speedy-Fit for loss of support in which Molly must show that she has suffered pecuniary loss due to Toby's death, damage for bereavement and cost for funeral expenses. As for the miscarriage of her baby, this would depend on whether this is not too remote as a consequence from the accident that caused Toby's death. Sources: 1. Wikipedia. 24 April 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales 2. Contract Law, Third Edition, Mary Charman, Willan Publishing 3. http://www.a-level-law.com/contract/agreement/lecture.htm 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Accidents_Act_1976 5. Dow, D. & Lill, J. (2007). Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Litigation. London: CLP, Ch. 15. ISBN 1-905391-28-5 6. John Hodgson, John Lewthwaite (2007). Tort Law Textbook. Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition 7. http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/pdf/org_justice_eng_en.pdf 3. Read More