Law of Contract - Coursework Example

BUSINESS LAW The possible issues that require an analysis are that of whether there was an invitation to treat or offer, an acceptance or a counter offer, whether it turned out to be acceptance at the end. An offer has been defined as an expression whereby willingness on the part of the offeror is found so as to contract on certain terms. It is necessary to point out at this point that there must be an intention by the offeror to get bound by the terms if an acceptance is made by the offeree. (Gibson v. Manchester City Council1) Thus no further negotiations can be made after that point. Another important aspect that must be noted is that not all communications will be treated as offers. Therefore it is necessary to point at this point that other steps that might be found in the process of negotiations can be categorized under a statement of intention, a supply of information or an invitation to treat. A statement of intention is where one party discloses that it intends to do something rather than stating that it will do something. (Harris v. Nickerson2) If one party gives information to another party, he provides that information to make things clear for the party and this can not be said to create an intention by the party providing information to have the intention to act upon it. This is called supply of information and the main case that can be referred to is Harvey v. Facey3 where a telegraph answering the query was sent to another party, the question was of the lowest possible price that would be accepted for the property and so this was said to be supply of information. Finally the term invitation to treat is said to be negotiations of the party showing willingness to enter into a contract. In other words it is an invitation by one party to make an offer. (Storer v. Manchester City Council4) Moving on the acceptance of offer will now be considered. Acceptance has been defined as an unequivocal assent to the terms to of the offeror. It has been stated that acceptance of an offer can be done through words or conduct. (Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Company5) However, if new terms are imposed into by the offeree, this does not constitute to be an acceptance but is known as counter-offer. A counter clearly implies the destruction of the original offer, and thus the original offer will lapse and cannot be subsequently accepted. (Hyde v. Wrench)6 If it is found that the offeree requested for a query or sought for further information, it would not be treated as an acceptance or a rejection and therefore it can be said that original offer is intact. (Stevenson, Jacques & Co. v. Mclean7) Finally an important point that has been stated by the Court of Appeal is that in some cases there would be a battle of forms which would include offers and counter offers passing from one end to the other, therefore it has been held that the last ‘shot’ wins the ‘battle of forms’.(Butler Machine Tool v. Ex-Cell-08) The first contact by Gordon to Dodgy can be clearly said to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer, it can be said so because Gordon asked about the cost and configuration of the energy-efficient servers rather than laying down any possibilities of an offer. The reply from Dodgy Tony Ltd can be treated as a supply of information and can be related to the facts of Harvey v. Facey9. Thus it can be clearly stated that Dodgy did not intend for an offer to be made. Gordon’s reply can be said to constitute as an offer stating the price and the configuration, this can be proved by looking at the case of Gibson v. Manchester City Council10. Moving on, the reply from Dodgy Tony ltd can be said to be a counter offer, even though an invoice has been sent, it can be said that the note constitute as a counter offer because it destroys the unequivocal part of acceptance and clearly has erased important points required by Gordon that is of latest processors and the delivery time of one month. Thus it can be said that Gordon’s original offer has been destroyed and a new offer has come into effect. The reply that was given by Gordon to Dodgy Tony’s offer clearly emphasized on the fact that Gordon wanted the contract to be according to the specification he had provided for, thus by looking at Butler Machine Tool v. Ex-Cell-011 it can be clearly said that offers and counter offers had been passing and therefore Gordon made another counter offer to the offer that had been put forward by Dodgy Tony. Finally it can be said, as pointed out in Butler12 that the last shot wins the battle of forms, that Gordon’s final counter offer stood ground. However on his return from holiday he waited another month for the arrival of the goods. This can be said to be an acceptance of Dodgy Tony’s offer. However, it should be pointed out that that offer had been destroyed. Thus if Dodgy Tony did think of it an acceptance then the terms provided by Gordon would stand and therefore there would be breach by Dodgy Tony for not delivering the goods on time. However, even if it is presumed by the courts that the offer of Dodgy Tony did stand it can be said that Gordon has been provided with 10 servers XX2TS, which are not energy efficient, which is a breach of an important term which had been put down both by Dodgy Tony and Gordon. Thus it can be stated that if there has been an acceptance then a term which goes to the root of the contract has not been abided with and so the court may grant a remedy of specific performance which requires for the performance of the contract or may order the rescission of the contract, that is by rescinding the contract the court may set aside the contract and try and restore the parties to the position they had been before they had entered into the contract Bibliography Peel, Edwin, and G. H. Treitel. Treitel on the Law of Contract. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2007. Furmston, M. P., G. C. Cheshire, and C. H. S. Fifoot. Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmstons Law of Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Read More