Concise Contract Law - Assignment Example

LST2BSL. by Student’s name Course + code name Professor’s name University name City, State Date Question 1 Issue The Issue at hand is that Vladimir seems to have gone back on the terms of the agreement by now excluding electricity from the rent payment for the lease property. The issue is whether Sasha who has responded to the advertisement and is ready to pay the $1000 is justified to claim that Vladimir offers the lease property at the advertisement price. It has to be determined whether by placing that advertisement Vladimir had made an offer or merely an invitation to treat. Rule In order for an ad to be deemed an offer, it must be proved that the advertiser intended to be bound by the terms of the advertisement upon acceptance.1 It is important to distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat cannot bind the advertiser upon its being accepted since it the advertiser is simply inviting offers (Blum, 2007).2 For the most part, advertisements are considered invitations to treat.3 The Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] is the foremost case in offer and acceptance. The Carolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that it would pay $100 to any person that contracted the flu on using their smoke balls. Mrs. Carlill bought the smoke balls, caught the flu and claimed the reward. The Court of Appeal held that the advert comprised a unilateral contract since making a guarantee in terms shows intent to be bound by the contract. It was also held that it was possible to make an offer to the world. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] it was held that goods on diplay are an invitation to treat. It is only when the cashier accepts that a contract is made. The same rule was also held in Fisher v Bell [1961]4 in asserting that good on display is purely an invitation to treat and not an offer (Kelleher, Robey & Mastin, 2015). In Partridge v Crittenden (1968)5 it was held that the defendant who advertized patridges for sale was purely an invitation to treat and not an offer. Application The law on offers asserts that an advertisement is merely an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Vladimir’s advertisement was merely an invitation to treat as it could be argued he never intended to be contractually bound by it. The advertisement was intended to call upon interested parties to meet with Vladimir to discuss terms in order to enter into contract. However, the rule in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball would have applied if Vladimir’s advertisement had asserted that premises would be occupied upon payment of the $1000 (Meena, 2008). Conclusion Sasha would fail in her claim against Vladimir since it is clear that the advertisement on the notice board is an invitation to treat and not an offer that is contractually binding upon acceptance. Question 2 Issue The issue in this instance is whether Sasha’s acceptance of Vladiir’s offer is valid in law. It is critical to determine what would constitute valid acceptance so as to be able to ascertain what legal obligations Vladimir has towards granting a lease to Sasha. At what point does the acceptance from Sasha become valid. Rule There are three rules which must be satisfied in determining if acceptance is valid; certainty of the agreement, the terms of the offer must match with the terms of the acceptance and the offeror must receive communication of the acceptance from the offeree (Gillies,1988). In Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] the defendant accepted an offer fro the plaintiff accepting his offer through telex to purchase 100 tones of cathodes. The court of appeal held that in order for acceptance to be valid its communication must have reached the offeror.6 In Adams v Lindsell (1818) the defendant offered to sell some wool to the plaintiff and asked to receive reply in the course of post. The court held that in instances in which the parties agree to use post as a means of communication, a valid contract is entered when the offeree places the acceptance correspondence in the post.7 In Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] Dr Hughes offered his house to Holwell Securities for sale, but asserted that he had to receive notice in writing before the expiry of six months. Holwell securities put their acceptance in the post 5 days before expiry and it arrived late and was consequently rejected by Dr. Hughes. They sued relying on the postal rule. It was held that since Dr. Hughes had specified the means of acceptance, a valid contract was entered upon his receiving the acceptance in the manner specified.8 The agreement has to be certain in order for it to be valid (Simpson,1987). In Scammell and Nephew v Ouston [1941] Scammel entered into a contract to supply a van to HP according to HP Terms over two years.9 It was held that the terms were too vague to constitute a valid agreement. However, in Sudbrook Trading Estate v Eggleton [1983] it was held that the clause to appoint a surveyor by both parties to the sale of land contract was not too vague as to be unenforceable.10 Application According to Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] the acceptance of the offer by Sasha had not been communicated to him until the 7th when he read it. Furthermore, Vladimir had said that he had to receive the reply by email for the acceptance to be valid. The post office rule of acceptance when the letter is posted does not apply since Vladimir expected a reply by email (Mckendrick, 2014). While Sasha might argue that Scammell and Nephew v Ouston [1941] will apply since Vladimir had not set the time, Vladimir will argue on the premise of reasonability of time for acceptance. Conclusion It is highly unlikely that Sasha will win since Vladimir has an argument that acceptance was not communicated, and if it was, it was in a manner that had not been agreed upon by the parties therefore making the acceptance invalid. Question 3 Issue The issue in this instance is whether the action taken by Vladimir and Roberto in the formation of an oral control constitutes the repudiation of the verbal contract and formation of a new valid contract. The issue is whether an oral contract can replace a written contract through the actions of the the parties in question. Rule The Noel Edmonds v Ulrik Lawson [2011] is one of the foremost cases regarding the issue of oral contracts. Noel Edmonds in partnership with his friend Ulrik Lawson agreed to buy a certain property. They were to secure funding and renovate the houses and later sell them. They made an oral agreement regarding the aspects of who would pay for what part of the renovation. They later fell out when Noel believed he had spent more and thus deserved more of the profits. It was held that since there was no written contract the contract was not enforceable. In United States ex rel. Crane Co. v. Progressive Enterprises, Inc the defendant was informed by the constructor that the construction work would cost more. He did not object in any way and the constructor went ahead to start the job. The court held that parties are permitted to change or modify existing contract terms orally or in writing (Kelleher, Robey & Mastin, 2015). It was held that a modification must be in writing if it the sums that are involved are worth $500 or more. The last shot rule is an important part in determining the enforceability of verbal contracts. The last shot rule asserts that if one party makes an offer that is not counter offered by the other party, then the last offer stands as binding. Another important rule is the contract entered into through implied conduct. The terms of a contract may be implied on the actions of the parties that have agreed to it even if it is verbal. However the implication is usually a matter of fact rather which has to be evidenced by the conduct of the parties (Blum, 2007).11 Application Vladimir in this instance may argue based on a written contract being superior to the verbal contract. However, according to the rule in Noel Edmonds v Ulrik Lawson he will find it hard to enforce the contract given his implied acceptance of the verbal contract he entered into with Roberto. According to the rule in United States ex rel. Crane Co. v. Progressive Enterprises, Inc, Vladimir would also find it hard to enforce the written contract to recover money owed due to his conduct. He never objected when Roberto started paying $500 dollars in rent rather than the agreed rent in the written contract of $1000. By his conduct of accepting the reduced rent payments, he implied that a new contract of reduced rent had been entered into between him and Roberto thus making the written contract void. Conclusion Roberto is likely to win the suit if Vladimir sue him since the actions of Vladimir implied that a new contract had been made which made the written contract unenforceable. Bibliography Blum, B. A. (2007). Contracts: examples & explanations. Austin, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Gillies, P. (1988). Concise contract law. Sydney, Federation Press. Kelleher, T. J., Robey, R. G., & Mastin, J. M. (2015). Smith, Currie & Hancock's common sense construction law: a practical guide for the construction professional. Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons Inc. Mckendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford, United Kingdo: Oxford University Press Meena, R. L. (2008). Textbook on law of contract. Delhi, Universal Law Pub. Co. Simpson, A. W. B. (1987). A history of the common law of contract: the rise of the action of assumpsit. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Cases Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327 Court of Appeal Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, 28 Am. Dec. 372 Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421 Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 Court of Appeal Scammell and Nephew v Ouston [1941] AC 251 House of Lords Sudbrook Trading Estate v Eggleton [1983] AC AC 444 House of Lords Questions 2 to 11 TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS 1. FALSE 2. TRUE 3. FALSE 4. TRUE 5. FALSE 6. FALSE 7. FALSE 8. FALSE 9. TRUE 10. FALSE Read More