This would apply in the case of Gordon and Dodgy Tony. Dodgy Tony’s original offer is for 10 XX3TT energy-efficient servers with the older generation processors but maximum storage capabilities, at a cost of 5,000$ each to be delivered two months after the reception of the order. But Gordon has made a counter offer, changing the terms and the price of each processor to $4500. Dodgy Tony, in accepting this offer and preparing an invoice for $45,000 has again changed the terms by stating “as per original quotation”, and in turn Gordon has varied the terms further by sending the cheque for $45,000 but stating “contracted under my specification”.
This is the last counter offer, which will be deemed by the Court to have been accepted by Dodgy Tony, because he did not make a counter offer, specifying that the delivery could only be made on the basis of his original quotation. In the case of Brogden v Metropolitan Railway2, the performance of a contract was held to be equivalent to an agreement of the terms of the counter offer. Similarly, in the case of Trentham v Luxfer3 Since Dodgy Tony has accepted Gordon’s check without any further terms or objections, therefore he will be held to have agreed to the terms of the contract on the basis of Gordon’s specification.
Thus, the legally actionable contract which will be valid in this instance is the contract with terms as set out by Gordon. In the case of Gordon and Dodgy Tony, consideration is also established, because the price of $45,000 was agreeable to both parties, as Dodgy Tony has accepted that price for 10 processors, hence this is additional grounds to establish that a contract exists. Consideration was defined by Lord Dunedin as follows: “an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus
...Download file to see next pages Read More