Contract between Ben and Sharon - Assignment Example

Number Subject Name Lecturer’s Name Law Due date Date Submitted Question 1 The issues in this case would be whether there was a contract created by the postal communication between Ian and Ben. Another issue would be whether Ian’s email would override the acceptance made by post such that the acceptance would be effectively withdrawn via email. Could Ian after attempting to decline an offer bring an action for breach of contract? Is there still a contract existing at the time when Ian comes on 1st June with an intent to speak to the students? The postal rule states that an offer my post is accepted once the letter accepting the offer is addressed correctly and posted. Thus, the moment the letter is left in the hands of the postal officials; effective acceptance would have taken place as was held in Adams v Lindsell (1818) The other aspect would be whether acceptance can be terminated through a faster means. Although there has been controversy on this aspect, the position has been that withdrawal cannot be accepted. This has been claimed to be unfair to some extent as was held in Re Imperial Land Co of Marseilles (1872). In contract it must be ensured that no one party is disadvantaged. The courts have therefore tried to ensure that the parties are at an equal footing when entering into a contract or during further negotiations in a contract. This would therefore mean that a contract would have been made at the time when Ian posted his letter on 1st April. The proposition therefore that the acceptance maybe withdrawn at any time before the letter accepting the offer is received would therefore will not stand and a contract will be held to exist despite the email getting to Ben before the latter of acceptance. The parties can have rights under a contract extinguished if there the contract is discharged. This may be done through agreement or by breach by one of the parties. It has been held before that anticipatory breach by one party either by words or conduct may give the innocent party a right to treat the contract as at an end. This was held in Hochster v De La Tour (1853). Ian after sending a letter of acceptance, a contract was concluded. He therefore had an obligation under the contract to come and talk to the class. He however decides to send an email before the acceptance letter could be received. Ian would still be bound by the contract unless the parties, in agreement waive their rights under the contract. This would extinguish their duties and obligations as against each other. The contract that exists between Ian and Ben is extinguished as a result of breach of contract. The breach need not to have occurred. In this case, Ian is clear through his email that he does not intend to be bound by the contract. That is intimation that he will not be fulfilling the contract as created through his acceptance by post. The only action that would arise in this case would be by Ben. Ben has a choice of either treating the contracting as existing and sue for damages for the anticipatory breach or may treat the contract as discharged and seek damages. Ben in this case chooses to look for an alternative speaker. This is an indication that he, being the innocent party treats the contract as having come to end. The rights and duties of the parties to the contract have therefore been extinguished. No party can therefore bring an action for the performance of the contract since the contract no longer exists. Despite the fact that Ian may have incurred a cost in coming to make the speech, he cannot claim breach of contract. He had intimated that he would not be available since he had a better offer. With that information, Ben had the right to treat the contract as having discharged or continue with the contract and sue Ian for damages. Ben chooses to treat the contract as having been discharged. Ian is therefore under no right, if anything; he is to pay damages to Ben if Ben was to seek the same in a court of law. In conclusion, there is a contract that is created when an offer made by Ben to Ian. The same happens on the very moment Ian correctly addresses the letter and leaves it in the hands of the officials at the postal office. His email in the next day cannot be treated as an effective withdrawal since allowing such would amount to an unfair outcome especially to Ben, instead, it can only be treated as an intimation not to perform the contract. He cannot therefore bring an action for breach of contract since Ian already treated the contract as discharged hence releasing the parties of their obligations. Question 2 The issue in this case is whether there was a contract between Ben and Sharon. This would be established by finding out whether the communication via email resulted to a contract. Another issue is whether the contract would still be enforceable after the realization that both parties entered into the contract based on a belief that they were talking about the same subject matter. Would the existence of mistake result to the agreement being rescinded? The rule is that where the communication is via email, a valid contract is made once the offer is accepted. This was held in The Brimnes (1974).The acceptance is taken to have been made when the email is received and read by the party making the offer. Such communications are also governed by statute (Electronic Transactions Act, 2000) In law, mistake does not necessary lead to a contract being declared void. However if it can be shown that the parties made a mutual mistake especially in regard to the subject matter of the contract, then the contract will be declared as void as was held in Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) .If the performance of the contract is radically different from what was intended by the parties, then the obligations by the parties would be discharged. The question here would be whether the mistake would be so fundamental such that the contract cannot be performed. However, some reservation exist where there is an issue of negligence by one of the parties. When making a contract, it is important that the parties are at consensus ad idem. This means that the parties are not actually talking of different issues. The existence of mutual mistake negates the agreement between the parties. In the case, Sharon and Ben have entered into a contract through effective acceptance of an offer made by Sharon as a response to Ben’s email. The issue brought up by Ben that there is absence of a written contract should not suffice. A contract need not be in writing unless it is one that requires that the agreement be in writing. In this case, the agreement to have someone come and speak to a class is not one that would call for a written contract. As it was stated above, emails correspondence of an offer and acceptance results to a binding agreement and there was therefore a contract formed after acceptance by Sharon. An issue of mistake however arises. There appears to be a mistake between the kind of service required by Ben and the Kind that Sharon offers. They both progress in negotiations in the belief that they are actually talking about the same thing. Both parties are not at fault since Ben on his side sent the email believing that Sharon specialized in Astronomy as had been stated on the webpage. Sharon on the other hand did not know that there had been a mistake on what is stated on the webpage as her specialty. When accepting the offer, she genuinely believes it to relate to her specialty. This amounts to a mutual mistake as the parties are at cross purpose. They believe that they are addressing the same thing while in reality; the subject matter is totally different. The contract will therefore be void for mutual mistake. This means that both parties would not be able to claim under the contract since they had been advancing the agreement based on totally different beliefs as to what was the subject matter. Ben wants an astronomy speaker and Sharon is from a totally different field. As it was stated above, though there was an agreement, it is negated by the fact that there is no consensus ad idem between the parties. The negation of the agreement therefore means that no party can make a claim from the other party for enforcement of the contract since it would have been nullified. Despite the fact that a contract had been formed between the parties, the same is void for mutual mistake. Sharon cannot therefore bring a successful suit against Ben. Ben would claim the existence of a mutual mistake. This would mean that Ben would not have breached any duties since the agreement would have been negated by the existence of mutual mistake. It is true that Sharon may have incurred a cost in coming to the talk but there is no remedy since Ben honestly believed that her services would be in regard to astronomy but not astrology. Subjecting him to pay damages would be unfair. References Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) Electronic Transactions Act 2001(QLD) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678 Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 Re Imperial Land Co of Marseilles (1872) LR 7Ch 587 Tenax Steamship Co v Owners of the Motor Vessel Brimnes [1974] QB 929 Read More