Business Law and International Trade Law - Essay Example

According to Carr and Stone (74), the common law provides that an offer can be revoked at any time before the acceptance. However, there are certain requirements for the revocation of an offer. According to Art 16(1), “until a contract is concluded, an offer may be revoked if the revocation reaches the offeree before he has dispatched the acceptance” (Car and Stone, 74). From the given case, it is obvious that Hoover could not duly satisfy the requirements of an offer revocation. It is observed that the offeror (Hoover) did not properly communicate the revocation to the offeree (Clemens). The telephone conversation of Hoover with Williams will not constitute a valid revocation as it fails to meet the essential requirements stated under the law. Moreover, Hoover said that they might not want to go through with the deal (case). It represents a vague statement by which a clear distinction cannot be made. In short, Hoover has the obligation to comply with his offer since he failed to revoke the offer and hence Clemens’ acceptance to the offer has formulated a valid agreement to which Hoover is liable.
In the second case, it can be clearly observed that Buster Codgill has not formed a contract with the Bank of Benton. In order to form a valid contract, an agreement must be made with a valid offer and valid acceptance. Here, Buster Codgill acts as offeror while Bank of Benton stands in the position of the offeree. However, both the offer and acceptance are not in written form; instead, it was expressed verbally. Although offer and acceptance are expressed verbally, it does not come under the rule of oral contract. An oral contract is a contract in which its terms are formed by spoken communication (Oral contract elements). In addition, it is stated that the offeree must act on the agreement in order for making the oral contract in force. In this case, the bank’s president Julio Plunkett, in response to the offer just says that he would start the paperwork soon (case). Therefore, it is obvious that the dealings between the parties do not create any contractual obligations. Similarly, the term of the contract cannot prove in a court of law due to various reasons. Firstly, since there were no witnesses during the formation of their oral agreement, it will be a cumbersome task for the Bank of Benton to prove the legal existence of the contract (The Validity of Oral Contracts). Secondly, the Bank of Benton has not taken any action on the contract. In short, the case evidently shows that both the parties have not met the basic requirements of a valid contract.