Ben Sent a Letter to Ian Inviting Him to Speak in His Class - Assignment Example

Fundamentals of Law Name Institution Fundamentals of Law Facts of the case are that Ben sent a letter to Ian inviting him to speak in his class. Ian then sent a letter accepting the offer. The next day he sent a letter revoking his acceptance, which Ben received. Issue1: Was there a valid offer? A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more contracting parties which gives rise to obligations which are enforced or recognized by law (Schmitthof & Sarre, 1977 p. 8). An offer is an expression or a communication to contract on certain terms with the intention that a binding agreement will exist once the offer is accepted (Clarke, 2012 np.) From the facts given, Ben sent a letter to Ian on the 1st of March inviting him to speak to his class. This constituted an offer to enter into a legally binding contract with Ian. Therefore, from the facts of the case, there was a valid offer made by Ben to Ian and this is evidenced by the letter posted by Ben. Issue 2: Was there a valid acceptance? An acceptance is defined as a final, unqualified and unconditional expression of assent to all the terms of an offer (Schmitthof & Sarre, 1977 p.14). For an acceptance to be valid it must be communicated to the offeror and according to the postal rule, an acceptance is deemed effective and to have been communicated as soon as the letter of acceptance, correctly addressed and stamped is put into the postal box. This was brought out in the case of Henthorn v Fraser (1892) 2 Ch.27 where it was held in part that an acceptance is complete as soon as it is posted. In the facts given, Ian accepted the offer and sent a letter to Ben communicating his acceptance. At this point in the case, there was evidence of a valid offer and a valid acceptance with Ben making the offer and Ian accepting the offer and making sufficient communication of his acceptance to Ben by posting his letter of acceptance. Issue 3: Was there a revocation of the acceptance? As earlier stated, an acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated for it to be termed as a valid acceptance in contract law. In this case, there was a subsequent communication by the offeree, which had the effect of revoking the acceptance sent by post. This revocation amounts to the termination of the contract between the two parties to the contract. Ben while making the offer made it a term of the offer that the acceptance is made before 1st of May. The email sent by Ian was sent on the 2nd of April and would therefore have the effect of revoking the acceptance earlier sent by post and terminating the contract. According to section 13 of The Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000, emails as a form of acceptance are deemed communicated when the email is sent. Therefore there was no binding contract between Ian and Ben because there was a communication of a revocation of acceptance within the time stipulated for the contract to be accepted. Issue 3: Is Ian likely to succeed in his claim? There is a binding contract only when there is an offer made and an unqualified acceptance by the other party to the contract. The time within which it was specified for the acceptance to be made lapsed while a revocation of the acceptance had been made and no other acceptance by the offeree had been made within this time. Therefore according to the facts given, Ian is not likely to succeed in his claim as he had communicated his desire to reject the offer made by Ben. There was therefore no binding contract as there was no unqualified and absolute acceptance of the contract made by Ben. In effect, Ian is not likely to succeed in his claim for the enforcement of the contract as there is evidence of the email which he sent expressing his revocation of the acceptance earlier made to Ben. There was therefore no binding contract between the two parties. On the second case, the facts are that Ben sent Sharon an email in which he made her an offer to speak in his class in exchange for a consideration. Sharon accepted the offer by email the next day. On the day of the lecture, Ben realized that Sharon was an Astrologer and not an Astronomer and refused to pay her claiming that there was no binding contract as the deal was not in writing. Issue 1: Was there an offer to enter into a contract with Sharon? As discussed earlier, an offer is an expression of readiness to contract on the terms defined by the offer whereby if the terms are accepted; it will give rise to a binding contract (Trietel, 1975 p. 8). An offer is deemed to be effectively expressed when it is communicated in various forms such as by conduct, email, fax, advertisements, letters or any other form of communication (Cheshire and Fifoot, 1975 p.27). In the case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 it was emphasized by the court that a valid offer can be determined by a reasonable persons view of the situation and not by the party’s own subjective intentions. From the facts of the case given, Ben made an offer to Sharon based on information he obtained from the webpage of a university. Though they both entered into the contract on mistaken beliefs, there was still a valid offer made by Ben to Sharon. Therefore there was a valid offer made by Ben to have Sharon lecture in his class for a consideration. Issue 2: Was there a valid acceptance of the offer? As mentioned, an acceptance is a final, unqualified and unconditional expression of assent to all the terms of an offer. The expression of intention to assent must be in response to an offer and it must match the terms of the offer precisely, furthermore the expression of intention to assent must be communicated to the offeror for it to be termed as an acceptance (Hudson, 1966 p.169). This was brought out in the case of Tinn v Hoffman and Co. (1873) 29 LT 271 where Justice Balckburn stated that when a contract is made between two parties, there is a promise by one party in consideration of the promise made by the other and thus there are two assenting minds, the parties agreeing in opinion and there is an exchange of promises. Australian Law requires an acceptance to be made in reliance or pursuance of an offer. This was brought out in the case of R v Clarke (1927) 40 C.L.R. 227 where it was held that there cannot be assent to an offer without knowledge of the offer and ignorance of the offer is the same thing whether it is due to not hearing of it or forgetting it after hearing. From the facts given, Sharon made an unqualified and unequivocal acceptance to the offer made to her by Ben and further communicated her acceptance by sending him an email expressly stating her acceptance of the offer to lecture his class in exchange for a consideration. This therefore means that up to this point there was a valid offer and a valid acceptance both of which were communicated as evidenced by the email. Issue 3: Does Ben have any defenses? Usually in Contract Law, a contract can be avoided if the parties made a mistake, which puts both parties at cross-purposes. A mistake is an erroneous belief concerning something. Parties to a contract can be mistaken as to the subject matter of the contract which in the end sets them at cross purposes though they may appear to be in agreement ( Stoljar, S. J., 1968 p. 270). In the case of Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906 where the court held the contract to be void owing to the mutual mistake of the contracting parties. From the facts given, we see that both Ben and Sharon were mistaken concerning the lecture to be given. Ben believed that Sharon would give an Astronomy lecture and Sharon believed it to be an Astrology lecture. Both parties entered into the contract on a mistaken belief as to the subject matter of the contract and therefore Ben can use this as his defense and be able to avoid the contract on the grounds of a mistake as to the subject matter. Issue 4: Is Sharon likely to succeed in her claim? If Ben’s sole defense is that the contract entered into between him, Sharon was not in writing, and therefore not binding, then Sharon would be able to succeed in her claim. The offer was made by communication through email and the acceptance was communicated through email. These emails present sufficient evidence for a contract and the intention of both parties to enter into a contract. Consequently, contracts need not be written and can be oral contracts and would need to be proved by the conduct of both parties ( Greig and Davis, 1987 p. 200) which in this case was synonymous with those of parties in a legally binding contract as was brought out in the case of JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Mull Holland (1931) 45 C.L.R. 282. If Ben’s defense is that of mistake as to the subject matter, then Sharon would not be able to succeed in her claim as a mistake as to the subject matter renders a contract void ( Stoljar, S. J., 1968 np). This means that the contract did not exist in the first place and Sharon could not be able to enforce a contract that never existed from the beginning and therefore she would have no claim against Ben. References. Beale, H. G., Bishop, W. D., Furmston, M. P. (1995) Contract Cases and Materials. (5th ed). Clark, Julie (2012). Australian contract Law. Retrieved from: http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html Furmston, M.P., (1975), Cheshire Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (9th ed., 1975) 19 - 20. Greig and Davis (1987). The Law of Contract at 246. Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th ed (2007). Hudson, A. H., (1966). “Retraction of Letters of Acceptance” (1966) 82 L. Q. R. 169 - 173 Schmitthoff, Clive. M., Sarre, David. A. G., (1977). Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law (13th ed.) Stoljar, S. J., (1968). “A New Approach to Mistake in Contract” (1968) 28 M.L.R. 265 - 285 Stoljar, S. J., (1968). Mistake and Misrepresentation, A study in contractual principles, Sweet and Maxwell. Trietel, G. H., (1975). The Law of contract. (4th ed.). Read More