Offers and Acceptances as a Part of an Agreement - Essay Example

s “However, I consider that in this instance such an analysis is not called for. I am persuaded that Parliament did not intend to limit the application of this provision to a case where a child or young person acts as principal and therefore property passes to him. On the contrary, I have come to the clear conclusion that section 7 applies where a child or young person enters into a transaction of sale, whether as a principal or on behalf of someone else, whether disclosed or undisclosed and whether or not property passes to him…”. In order to get into the depth of the argument, it is crucial to discuss the principals generally attached to offer and acceptance. Both offer and acceptance constitute a part of an agreement, which is in turn an element of a contract. An offer can be defined as an option given by an individual which he has agreed to and would not revoke until a specified set of period (Evans p. 145). In order to facilitate the order of business in the market, the parties involved sign a contract based on mutual consent and understanding. The agreement over the contract, however, relates to the offer and agreement and only on the accumulation of both can a successful agreement be reached. Generally, the offeror begins with decision so as to make an offer, after which he deems necessary to communicate it to the relevant party. Then, the offeree may accept the offer after which it is necessary for him to communicate the acceptance. However, the acceptance occurs formally only when the offeror receives the acceptance. In the middle of such scenarios, there may be many different technicalities, where the offeree may also request to make changes in the offer, or may even ask for further information. Other parties may also be involved for smooth disposal of agreement. However, in the context of the issue being discussed, the child or an under-age individual is an offeree, and the author is arguing over the situational contexts where the section 7 could be applied. In the view of the author, the offer must not be made to an under-age individuals in any case, not even when he acts of someone else`s behalf to accept an offer. Thus, in any case, any individual under the age of 18 must not enter into a transaction of sale otherwise banned to him; otherwise it would be breach of the law. Furthermore, prior to understanding the argument, there must be a discussion over the Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act of Parliament, which solely focuses on the rules of business regarding the sale of tobacco to under-aged individuals. The law applies to any individual who hasn’t yet passed the age of eighteenth, and thus, the law prohibits sale of tobacco to these young persons. Under the law, if a party makes an offer of the sale of tobacco to a person under the age of eighteen, be it tobacco or even the cigarette papers, a liability would be imposed on the offerer (Grear Britain 2007: 2). The law further specifies that the tobacco may or may not be for the use of the young person himself, yet liability would be imposed. This part of the section corroborates the argument of the author stating that even if the child is not the principal offeree and in such a case the young person is indirectly involved, the liability would still be imposed. Furthermore, the section holds that though the offerer liable in this case would be allowed to plead his case that he made a diligent effort to ensure that reasonable precautions were made. However, if the court deems that the situation was rather contradictory to the law, the machines selling tobacco to the young persons, the machines may be order to be placed elsewhere. Also, if compliance doesn’t occur in due time, liability must be imposed. Thus, the section 7 clearly corroborates the statement that the author has been arguing, i.e. it is not necessary that the young person is the principal offeree for the offerer to be liable. In other words, one may presume that since the section also says the offerer may also plead his case based on the fact that due diligence was made while taking necessary precautions. One may assume that due diligence argument also applies while the child is not the principal offerer and rather is making the transaction for another individual. However, the section itself clarifies the confusion while saying that even if the young person intends on making the transaction for another individual, and thus, is not the principal offeree, section 7 would apply on the seller. Thus, in no circumstances may it be deemed appropriate, or rather legal for the seller to make such a transaction of tobacco or cigarettes, where the young person i.e. one under the age of eighteen is involved, or else, liability would be imposed (Great Britain 2007: 4). To further understand the argument, the case itself where the decision was made in compliance with section 7, and the quotation mentioned in the beginning was mentioned, must be discussed. The case Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Reading Borough and its proceeding as well as the remarks of the sitting judges further clarify the situation to a large extent. Morrisons Supermarkets argued that technically whilst the cigarettes weren`t being sold and were just being presented for test purchase, the law prescribed under section 7 hasn’t been violated (Great Britain 2010: 11). In this context, an offer wasn’t made and also, a transaction didn’t take place, thus there is room for argument. Yet, the divisional court conveniently rejected the inherent argument. The Reading Borough Council had filed a complaint against the Morrsions Supermarket on the accusation that Section 7 has been violated since tobacco has been sold to a fifteen year old, while making a test purchase. Thus, the court convicted the company where a fine of £2,000 was imposed while the costs also accounted for £2,000. The court categorically looked into the reference to the transaction, rather ‘sale’ in the Section 7 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 (Great Britain 1997:6) . Here, the company was of the opinion that the law only prohibited the sale and transaction while in their case the passing on property didn’t qualify any such standards of transaction. However, the two sitting judges on the case, i.e. Justice Lloys and Justice Hooper, dismissed the appeal while clearly stating that even if the assumption is considered true that the purchaser was in no way acting as an agent in the transaction, there was no such provision in the section which had limited the jurisdiction of the statute where the section only applies where the contract included a principal. The judges also remarked that the argument posed by Morrisons would wreak havoc on the legislation. Also, a councilor from Reading, i.e. Paul Gittings, also remarked on the appeal saying that it was rather weak and ill-advised since it undermines the entire argument behind the legislation which is put in place to protect the young ones from coming under the influence of smoking. (Wilson 1992: 33) Thus, in the light of the arguments posed by the court judges also confirm and strengthen the argument being posed in the paper. In other words, those who argue that the Parliament had no intent to just limit the implementation of the provision for the cases where children act as principal agents during the transaction and thus, the property passes to them in such a scenario. Rather the proceedings of the case are clear enough in stating that section 7 of the act of parliament also applies where the transaction of sale has occurred whether or not the young individual was the principal agent. Thus, even when the purchase was conducted on behalf on someone else, the law would apply, and such a seller would be held liable under law. Thus, conclusively, both offer and acceptance constitute a part of an agreement, which is in turn an element of a contract. In order to facilitate the order of business in the market, the parties involved sign a contract based on mutual consent and understanding. However, in the context of the issue being discussed, the child or an under-age individual is an offeree, and the author is arguing over the situational contexts where the section 7 could be applied. In the view of the author, the offer must not be made to an under-age individuals in any case, not even when he acts of someone else`s behalf to accept an offer. Thus, in any case, any individual under the age of 18 must not enter into a transaction of sale otherwise banned to him; otherwise it would be breach of the law. The case Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Reading Borough and its proceeding as well as the remarks of the sitting judges further clarify the situation to a large extent. The two sitting judges on the case, i.e. Justice Lloys and Justice Hooper, dismissed put forth by Morrisons on the grounds that the assumption is considered true that the purchaser was in no way acting as an agent in the transaction, there was no such provision in the section which had limited the jurisdiction of the statute where the section only applies where the contract included a principal. Thus, even when the purchase was conducted on behalf on someone else, the law would apply, and such a seller would be held liable under law. Bibliography: Top of Form EVANS, D. A. (1995). Texas business law. Gretna, Pelican Pub. Co. GREAT BRITAIN. (1991). Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991: Chapter 23. London, H.M.S.O. GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Children and young persons (protection from tobacco). A bill [as amended in Standing Committee C] to increase the penalties for the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 16 years; to make other amendments of section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and section 18 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937; to make provision with respect to enforcement action by local authorities in England and Wales in relation to offences under section 7 of that act of 1933; to prohibit the sale of unpackaged cigarettes; to prohibit the advertising of tobacco or tobacco sponsored events from retail premises; to require the publication of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines; and for connected purposes. HL Bill. GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Children and young persons. A bill to extend the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, with respect to escapes from the care of fit persons, from approved schools and from remand homes or special reception centres. HL Bill. GREAT BRITAIN. (2010). Safe, sensible, social: alcohol : test purchasing, innovative practice. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. WILSON, D. (1992). Building a tobacco blockade: how to use the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to protect your children from smoking. London: Health Education Authority. Bottom of Form Read More