Contract Law - Assignment Example

Contract Law Problem Question The issue in this question relates to unilateral offer, invitation to treat, acceptance and revocation/rejection of offer.. Each of these would be discussed first, then an application of these to the facts would be made and finally an evaluation of the position of the parties would be made. Invitation to treat has been defined as an expression of willingness of a party to enter into negotiations with another with the hope that a contract would be reached at the end of such negotiations. Items on shop display and their prices are treated as an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell). Advertisements are generally treated as invitation to treat (Harris v. Nickerson1). An offer on the other hand has been defined as an expression of willingness by a party to enter into a contract on stated terms (offeror) and provided that such terms would be accepted by the person to whom the offer is made (offeree) a contract would come into existence. Unilateral offer has been defined as an offer to the public at large which can be accepted by any one. The situation in respect of unilateral offer was discussed at length in the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co2, wherein the court found the existence of such an offer in respect of an advertisement and the reason for doing so was the deposit of the money in the account. In respect of the advertisement by Hounslow Herald which was seen by Ali, it can be argued to be an invitation to treat, however the aspect of the £50 deposit is going to make it a unilateral offer. Thus this would constitute to be as a unilateral offer. As far as instantaneous means of communication is concerned it can be said that the postal rule in Adams v. Lindsell3 of acceptance is not applicable and thus actual communication of acceptance needs to be done (Mondial Shipping and Chartering BV v. Astarte Shipping Ltd4). However, it can be seen that communication of the offer had taken place and can be seen from the call from the sofa firm. Thus a valid contract had come into place and the rejection could not have been made by Ali. As far as the sale in the high street shop is concerned it was an invitation to treat and the shop assistant made him the offer of £300, this could either be accepted or rejected by Ali. b. The issue in respect of the current situation is that of consideration and thus an analysis of this would be made after taking into account the law on consideration. It is quite evident that the courts are not concerned about the fact as of a bad bargain being made between the parties. Consideration has been defined as the price which was paid to buy the promise. It must be of some value, recognised by the courts to be consideration (Richards, 2006 p54). The courts have considered valuable consideration as ‘A valuable consideration in the sense of the law, must consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other’.(Currie v. Misa)5 It is important to mention that the court have reiterated the fact that the consideration must be sufficient and need not be adequate. Thomas v. Thomas6. Thus the courts are not interested in the bargain being made. In the current situation the court would take into account the statement made by Leo as to him keeping her OK and Merissas expectation. From the facts it is clear that Merissa must have taken the statement to mean that she would be paid. However it needs to be balance out with the fact that she clearly did not say anything in respect of the consideration. Thus the court might find that the consideration paid by Leo was sufficient. c. The issue in respect of this question relates to consideration in respect of performance of an existing contractual duty to provide goods and services. In the current scenario it can be seen that there had been an agreement between Ola and John for consideration of £750, however the additional amount for the same contractual work is what raises the dispute. The courts have generally found performance of an existing contractual duty to be insufficient as can be seen from the case of Stilk v Myrick7 where the courts found that there was no obligation to pay the crew the addition amount that had been promised. However, the courts in the case of Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd8 found that performance of existing contractual obligation could amount to sufficient consideration. In reaching such a conclusion the courts took into account was that if a person derives a practical benefit from the work being completed on time and there was no economic duress or fraud then the existing contractual obligation would constitute to be good consideration. The courts therefore went on to allow the extra consideration citing the practical benefits which included the work being finished on time, the avoidance of finding other labour etc. Thus by taking into account the facts of the current scenario, there was a clear consideration for the existing contractual obligation, there was no duress. John derives practical benefits from the work being completed on time, that is his mother could and stay and the avoidance of finding other labour. Thus the courts are likely to grant Ola the additional £100 even though the consideration was for the existing contractual obligation that is dig and stock the garden pond. However, John can argue that there was duress as Ola cited inability to finish work because of money. The courts would weigh the practical benefit to John and duress put by Ola as pointed out earlier. Since the issue is on the balance of probabilities, the courts would allow Ola the additional amount as the balance is tilted towards her end.  References POOLE, J. (2010). Textbook on contract law. Oxford, Oxford University Press MCKENDRICK, E. (2009). Contract law. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Read More