The Case of Gibson v Manchester City Council - Assignment Example

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND REASONING – REASSESSMENT number: RESEARCHING AND APPLYING A CASE PRO FORMA NOTE: See the separate instructions for this task before completing this pro forma. A: ANALYSING THE CASE (70 marks) In relation to the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) House of Lords, give the following (expand the space allocated below as needed). 1. the legal issue(s) arising in the case: The major legal contention here is about contractual agreement. When does an offer-and-acceptance correspondence become a legal-binding agreement? Can any of the parties involved in this kind of relationship seek for a legal redress when one of them breaches the agreement? Or in general terms, what constitutes a legally acceptable contract? This case is all about finding answers to the complicity of presenting a universal description of what a contract is, and what it is not (Heidemann, 2007; Zimmermann & Whittaker, 2000). 2. the decision of the case: The House of Lords ruled that there was no contractual agreement between Robert Gibson and Manchester City Council, in the sense that traditional or conventional reasoning states that Manchester City never accepted the offer from Robert Gibson for the outright purchase of his council house. Manchester City was unable to accept the offer due to the change of government from the Conservative to Labour Party, which strongly stood against the sale of council houses, except for those who had already secured a contract with Manchester City Council before that time (Bailii, 2009). As a result of this decision, Manchester City has not in any way breached any contractual agreement with Robert Gibson, since no contract actually existed between the two parties. 3. the material facts in the case: The materials facts in this case can be divided into two categories: (a) Request for expression of Interest: It is true that Manchester City Council wrote Robert Gibson requesting for his offer to buy the council house he occupied since 1971. Robert Gibson actually sent his offer for the said house (Oughton & Davis, 2000). (b) Gibson’s offer: In response to Manchester Council’s request, Robert Gibson responded with an offer too buy his council house (Oughton & Davis, 2000). (c ) No Acceptance: There was no record of Manchester City Council sending an acceptance letter to Gibson’s offer (Oughton & Davis, 2000). 4. the steps in reasoning employed by the judge(s): There are two reasoning techniques for statutory interpretation used by the judges as they tried to resolve the case: First, originalism and dynamism; Second, critical legal studies (Graham 2001; Eskridge, 1994). (I) Originalism and Dynamism: All other Lords with the exception of Lord Edmund-Davies agreed that the original construction of the English Contract Law should abided with, which states that a request for an expression of interest is not recognized as an offer. On the other hand, Lord Edmund-Davies believed that such a request constitute a written “offer” to Robert Gibson. (ii) Critical Legal Studies: For the purpose of clarity, some related cases were researched and presented during the hearing. The Lords spent some time digging into the inter-relatedness of the past cases quoted. 5. a formulation of the ratio, expressed as a general principle: The ratio decidendi of this case can be summarized in one single idea: principle of conventionalism. The majority of the Lords supported following the precept of the English Land Law to the letter. What is important in conventional principle is that it discourages deconstruction of the statements in the laws. It rejects any attempt to use dynamism to prove the applicability of previously existing laws that have used to resolve similar cases in the past (Scheppele, 1988; Enright, 2002). The idea that Manchester City Council has not given Robert Gibson any offer stays within the original interpretation of English Contract Law; and for which this case was finally judged upon. 6. a short explanation of how any precedents are handled in the judgments: References were made to related court cases during this hearing. One of these precedents include Hyde v Wrench (1880) 3 Beav. 334 where there was no official offer to buy a property even though the applicant sent in an application form that didn’t result in an offer. Another case that was sited during this trial was that of Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 Q. B.D 346 where an offer was said to have been made but not properly documented. Another important case that was cited was that of Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App. Cas. 666 where an offer was reported too have taken place but without going through the necessary modalities. 7. an example of narrow obiter : What may be considered a narrow obiter on the part of judge is his unwillingness to let Lord Edmund-Davies sway him from conventionalism into dynamism. The judge strongly believed in the originality of interpretation of English Contract Law, which other Lords at the hearing offered strong support for. He thought that an “offer”should be described by what has been legally offered to Robert Gibson from Manchester City Council, and not the other way round (Charman et al.,2003; Baer and Rafferty, 2003). References 1. Baer, Marvin G and Rafferty, Nicholas (2003). Private International Law in Common Law Canada: Cases, Texts and Materials. Toronto, Ontario: Emond Montgomery Publication. 2. Bailii (2009). United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions on Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 6 (08 March 1979). Retrieved from on 16 August 2009. 3. Charman, Mary, Sherratt, Liz and Vanstone, Bobby (2003). AS Law. Devond; U.K: Willan Publishing. 4. Enright, Christopher (2002). Legal Technique. Devon, U.K: Federation Press. 5. Eskridge, William N (1994). Dynamic Statutory Interpretation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 6. Graham, Randy N (2001). Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice. Toronto, Ontario: Emond Montgomery Publication. 7. Heidemann, Maren (2007). Methodology of Uniform Contract Law: the UNIDROIT Principles in International Legal Doctrine and Practice. New York; Springer. 8. Oughton, David W. and Davis, Martin (2000). Sourcebook on Contract Law. New York; London: Routledge. 9. Scheppele, Kim Lane (1988). Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. 10. Zimmermann, Reinhard and Whittaker, Simon (2000). Good Faith in European Contract Law. Cambridge, U.K; Cambridge University Press. B. RESEARCHING THE CASE (10 marks) 1. ONE article which discusses this issues raised in this case is: Title of article: Lord Denning M R Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) 1 WLR 520 (CA) To What Extent Is This A Correct Statement Of The Law?   Author: Katrina McKenzie Citation: Katrina McKenzie (2006). “Lord Denning M R Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) 1 WLR 520 (CA) To What Extent Is This A Correct Statement Of The Law?” Retrieved from Coursework info on 15 August 2009. Available at < http://www.coursework.info/University/Law/Contract_Law/Lord_Denning_M_R_Gibson_v_Manchester_Cit_L84741.html> 2. Summary of the law Give THREE further cases in the same specific topic area as the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council: Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex-cell-O Corpn Ltd (1979) Stevenson v McLean (1880) Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) C. APPLYING THE CASE (10 marks) NOTE: See the short scenario contained in the instructions for this task to complete this section. 1. Who are you advising about what? (If multiple parties, separate them out to show what you are advising in relation to EACH party, don’t lump them altogether) James: I would advice James not to waste his time to seek for a legal redress about his case, because the previous administrator of Get Fit Now Gym has not offered him any contract that he would be able to attend the classes he has expressed his interest in, even though he has been enjoying that service like Robert Gibson in Gibson v Manchester City Council. 2. Who else involved in the problem and what is their position? The other users of Get Fit Now Gym are also involved in this problem. However, those who have been given assurances (whether in paper contract or oral confirmation) would be allowed to attend the classes. 3. Complete the attached grid mapping the issue raised in the short problem to the case of Gibson. NB. Only a summary is needed (you may have to condense the material for the application column in particular). LEGAL ISSUE/ QUESTION arising from the problem scenario PRINCIPLE / RULE Law (major premise) AUTHORITY/ EVIDENCE APPLICATION How the rule affects the parties (minor premise) CONCLUSION Outcome Can the users of Get Fit Now be allowed to attend the classes even though new manager has taken over the facility? Domestic Consumer Law British Justice Department Those who use Get Fit Now Gym are expected to be protected from improper malpractices by the service provider. The area of U.K law that handles this problem is Domestic Consumer Law Get Fit Now Gym would be expected to treat its clients fairly Read More