Can Sasha Sue Vladimir for Breach of Contract - Assignment Example

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Course: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Institution: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Tutor: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX @2014 1. Issue: Would Sasha succeed in a claim to the effect that Vladimir should be bound by the advertisement on the Notice Board? Relevant law: Common law states that in the law of contract, all advertisements are generally invitations to treat (Graw, 2008). What this means is that invitations to treat are not offers and therefore are not bound to be accepted like offers are (Fisher v Bell) However, any advertisement, either visual or audio, through the television, radio, notice or anywhere else, must be truthful and not misleading in order to protect people relying on such information (Elliott & Quinn, 2013). Truth-in-advertising laws are therefore enforceable and they apply similar standards irrespective of where the advertisement appears. Generally, it is not a requirement for landlords to disclose all information. However, where such information is provided, it must be accurate and not misleading. The law therefore states that it is unlawful to make false claims or representations using false advertising (Chen-Wishart, 2012). According to the laws of the land, a misleading statement must be material for one to be able to file a claim against a landlord. It is important to note that any all advertisements are invitation to treat. As such, advertisements cannot be treated as offers because in the case of invitation to treat, the one isn’t bound by law to accept an offer made by a prospective buyer. Application From the facts provided, it would be correct to conclude that Sasha relied on the information stated in the notice by Vladimir to give him a call. As all tenants are protected by the law and the effects of false advertising and judging by Vladimir’s act, it would be correct to state that he knows he posted a false advertisement in order to attract tenants. As such, I believe that information put on the notice by Vladimir is false to a material degree because stating that the electricity will be included in the rates of the lease attracted Sasha to make contact with the landlord. On the part of Vladimir, he failed to disclose in the advertisement that electricity charges would be footed by the tenant. In American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, Johnson and Johnson advertised a drug by comparing its side effects to a similar drug by American Home Products. However, Johnson and Johnson left out its own side effects from the advertisement. The court decided that Johnson and Johnson failed to disclose the side effects of its own drug and thus used false advertising that was misleading to the consumer (McKendrick, 2014). However, as mentioned earlier, full disclosure is not mandatory but if certain information is disclosed that will be of help to the customer, then it ought to represent the truth. Conclusion It is clear that the notice put up by Vladimir was meant to promote the leasing of the shop complex because prospective tenants like Sasha relied on this information to make an inquiry. Therefore, I believe that Sasha would succeed in a claim because the notice put up by Vladimir amounted to false advertising and false representation of the facts and as such the advertising is legally binding. 2. Issue: Can Sasha sue Vladimir for Breach of contract Relevant law: Under common law, a contract I legally binding if certain promises have been met by both parties. However, a contract is only legally binding if it meets certain elements and they include offer and acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legal capacity, consent and illegal and void contracts (Paterson, Robertson, & Duke, 2011). In looking at this current case, the elements of offer and acceptance and intention to create legal relations will be of concern. According to common law, a contract is formed when an offer offered to one party is accepted by another party. However, one must be able to distinguish an offer from willingness to deal. One leading case regarding the element of offer and acceptance is the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (Graw, Parker, Whitford, Sangkuhl & DO, 2014). However, in case an offer does not exist there cannot be an accepted as it was decided in Harvey v Facey. The other element is the invitation to treat and this too needs to be distinguished from an offer. While an offer will be legally binding upon acceptance, an invitation to treat does not need to be accepted as it merely constitutes an invitation for offers (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots) (Ciro, Goldwasser & Verma, 2011). For all invitation to treat, the party making the invitation is not obliged to accept an offer made by the other party. Application Looking at the fact in this part of the case, Mr. Vladimir on the first meeting with Sasha made an offer. By verbally telling Sasha that, “This is my offer. Go away and think about it. You had better get back to me soon by email as there is a lot of interest in the premises and I am actively looking for people as well”, he was explicitly making Sasha an offer. He even stated that in case she accepted the offer, she should communicate by mail. Additionally, Vladimir also made it clear that he was personally looking for potential tenants who he could offer the lease. Sasha then replied via mail, which is a legally binding method of offer acceptance. Her acceptance was within reasonable time because Vladimir had not found any potential tenant until that day Sasha mailed the acceptance letter as was decided in Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire (McKendrick, 2014). Unfortunately for Sasha, Vladimir gets another person who can take up the shop on the very same day that Sasha sends an agreement letter. According to contract law, if acceptance is made by mail and before a revocation, then letter of acceptance is legally binding once it is mailed. By Sasha mailing the letter on 6th, her acceptance became legally binding the moment she put it in the post box. Conclusion Despite the fact that the notice advertisement put up by Vladimir was an invitation to treat, Mr. Vladimir made Sasha a verbal offer which Sasha accepted within reasonable time. As such, Vladimir cannot revoke Sasha acceptance via telephone as he did since he clearly set precedence that Sasha should mail her acceptance offer. Sasha should therefore sue Vladimir for his actions as it constitutes a breach of contract. 3. Issue: Roberto’s legal position. Relevant law Just like any other contract, common law states that verbal agreements are legally binding so long as they meet all the elements of contract law and more. In a verbal agreement, there must be an offer made and for it to be binding legally it must be accepted. If this offer is not accepted then the verbal agreement is not binding. Parties entering into a verbal agreement must also do so under mutual consent and understanding (Lewison, 2011). In this case, each party must be aware of what he is agreeing to and the consequences of such agreement. The other element is consideration and there must be an exchange of valuables or promise by both parties if the agreement is to be binding. It is important that the consideration move from the promisee failure to which the promisee cannot enforce the verbal agreement (Tweddle v Atkinson). Common law also requires the parties entering in to verbal agreements to do so in good faith. Parties should therefore not enter into agreements with the aim of cheating the other party or break the law. If such ulterior motives are proven beyond reasonable doubt then such verbal agreements aren’t legally binding. Application From the facts provided in the case, both Roberto and Vladimir entered into a verbal agreement because there was no formal acknowledgement of what they had agreed upon. However, this doesn’t mean that this verbal contract wasn’t binding. The facts bring to light that there was exchange of consideration which was agreed upon by both parties. Furthermore, Vladimir continued to receive the $500 as the new rent for 20 weeks without question, and this could only mean that he had accepted Roberto’s offer. On hearing a rumor that Roberto will give notice of lease termination, Vladimir becomes agitated and decides to file suit against Roberto for the $10,000. If this was true then Roberto entered a verbal agreement with Vladimir in bad faith and this would render the new contract not binding. However, acting on information from rumors alone isn’t enough for Vladimir to arrive at such a conclusion. Roberto has not even provided his notice to terminate the lease and therefore it is only safe to conclude that Roberto had good intentions when entering into the agreement with Vladimir. Conclusion The facts stated in this case coupled with the relevant law mentioned, Vladimir does not have legal backing to sue Roberto for the recovery of $10,000 “arrears in rent.” For Roberto, while he can decide to terminate the lease with any legal reason, he is not bound to pay Vladimir the $10,000 “arrears in rent.” References Graw, S., Parker, D., Whitford, K., Sangkuhl, E., & DO, C., 2014. Understanding business law (7th e.d.). Chatswood, N.S.W. LexisNexis Butterworths. Ciro, T., Goldwasser, V., & Verma, R., 2011. Law and business (3rd e.d.). South Melbourne, Vic, Oxford University Press. Graw, S., 2008. An introduction to the law of contract. Sydney, Lawbook Co. Paterson, J. M., Robertson, A., & Duke, A., 2011. Principles of contract law. Rozelle, N.S.W., Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia. Lewison, K., 2011. The interpretation of contracts. London, Sweet & Maxwell. McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press. Chen-Wishart, M., 2012. Contract law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Elliott, C., & Quinn, F., 2013. Contract law. Harlow, England, Pearson Read More