1. Nicole and her purchases This situation becomes tricky when trying to understand whether Maxx it! (MI) is making an offer or an invitation to treat by emailing an advertisement to staff. For it to be an offer, it must be shown that MI intended to become legally bound with the email recipients. It is not MI’s intention to become automatically bound with all recipients just by sending one email. Therefore, MI’s advertisement is considered an invitation to treat, as those that received the email are not obliged to purchase and are only invited to make an offer. In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd., the principle of invitation to treat was established. The Court of Appeal held that …show more content…
Nicole’s first payment of £40 is past consideration and is not good consideration, thus legally insufficient, as per Lampleigh v Braithwait. This was not provided by Nicole, that is, she did not pay the extra £2 to satisfy fresh consideration. Nevertheless, since Nicole already had a pre-existing contractual obligation with MI for the other three goods and accepted their modification, then past consideration is valid, as per Re Casey’s Patents, and applied in Pao On v Yiu Long. Nicole is not likely to succeed in receiving the 10% discount. She failed to meet the condition clearly stated in the advertisement: ‘Simply download the 10% discount voucher and attach it to the email you send with your order’. Nowhere does it say the voucher should be downloaded, printed off and mailed. It asks the voucher be attached in the email along with the order. MI could be successful in arguing that Nicole did not meet the conditions of the advertisement to receive the discount, and therefore, is not entitled to it. Nicole, in her defence may try to apply the postal rule confirmed in Adams v Lindsell and Henthorn v Fraser, and claim she mailed in the voucher with Sharon’s papers accepting the 10% discount offer. Although, MI did not receive the voucher at all as it was lost, she could refer to Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant that states if the postal acceptance is properly addressed and posted, the postal rule can apply even if it
The contract was for a total of 62,748 jogging suits that would be custom made for girls and boys. The total contract price was for $ 749,103.60 that included the shipping of the merchandise, which would be shipped within six purchase orders. On or about August 29, 1994 they (Goody’s) terminated their contract in writing, which validates a right to cancel. The parties agreed to amend the first shipment date, Goody’s deny that all other shipment dates were to be amended as well. Goody’s feel that there was any “wrongful, unlawful, or without good cause or justification” eras on their behalf.
1.Adams orders one thousand widgets at $5 per widget from International Widget to be delivered within sixty days. After the contract is consummated and signed, Adams requests that International deliver the widgets within thirty days rather than sixty days. International agrees. Is the contractual modification binding?
iii. The three launch payments fit the before stated criteria of substantive payments. The contract signing payment and negotiation payment do fit the criteria because these payments are not proportionate to the vendor’s performance, do not relate solely to past performances, and are not “reasonable relative” to all of the deliverables and payment terms.
In Austral Standard Cables Pty Ltd v Walker, the court found that if the purchaser had not stated that they would not complete due to financial difficultly prior to the settlement, the vendor would be ready, able and willing to complete. Therefore the vendor’s failure to
I will take a step by step analysis of the situation between Brenda and Albert. Firstly, I will advise Brenda and afterwards Albert. I will present the facts chronologically, as given to me, and advise on each issue individually with supporting evidence. I will refer to court cases and legislation such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I will conclude by stating that despite the overwhelming evidence against Albert, supported by precedent court cases, there is no legal contract between the parties. I will provide Albert with legal advise assuming both business to business and business to consumer
The United States and New Zealand are the only developed countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising. Whether the practice of direct to consumer advertising is beneficial to the consumers or not is a highly debated subject with both positions presenting sound reasoning for their position. Whether the practice is beneficial or not to the consumer is not the question, but rather, is advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers ethical? To analyze this question I will use Rawls’s second principle of distributive justice for analysis.
Jan began a business called “Sunny Daze for Seniors Ltd.”, it “takes seniors on various trips and adventures in and around Edmonton.” She offers biking and canoeing, for both of which she had to rent the equipment. Jan entered two separate contracts, one for five bike from Wes Wheely, and the second for “5 ultra lite, fiberglass, tip resistant” canoes from Boat Stuff Inc., with the stipulation for both to be delivered May first.
In this case, Kallessi Mc Tavish is the principal, Maya Stork is the agent and the new suppliers are the third party. Firstly, this is a case of ratification as all the requirements of ratification are met, i.e. there is a clear principal in existence. This requirement can be contradicted with the case of Kelner V Baxter 1866 LR 2 CP 174, where the directors ordered goods before the company was even formed and so could not be held to pay for the goods. Principal is in capacity. Ratification is timeous and can be contradicted with the case Goodall V Bilsland 1909 SC 1152, where the solicitor had 10 days to appeal against a license renewal of a wine merchant and won the case but the wine merchant appealed against this as the solicitor didn’t
I reckon that it was misleading because if the offer had expired, it should have been pulled down from the website. I decided to call the sales executive of the company, who apparently defended the delivery man.
Q. Sue Smasher was a promising young tennis player. In July 1991, when she was 16, she entered into the separate agreements, both of which were to run until July 1993. No. 1, with Lew Lobb, a noted tennis coach whereby he undertook to organize her training and decide which tournaments she should play in. In return, Sue agreed to act on Lew’s advice and pay him 20% of her winnings from tournaments. No. 2, with Drive Power Ltd, whereby Sue promised to use their sports equipment in return for Drive Power paying all her travel expenses.
In the article “Consideration - in Acceptance of Contract”， this support Robert’s (2015) evidence that if an act is performed then a subsequent promise to pay by reference to that act is not enforceable as the consideration was past. Other that, he also noted that if there was an implication; the past promise to pay is enforceable.
A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.
It was this mergence that saw Lord Mansfield becoming known as ‘the founder of commercial law within this country [United Kingdom]’, due to his ability to harmonise ‘commercial custom and the common law ...with an almost complete understanding of the commercial community, and the fundamental principles of the old law and that that marriage of idea proved acceptable to both merchants and lawyers.’ At this stage, the principle of caveat emptor was utilised as a guiding principle for the courts, devised namely in response to the manner in which business at this time was undertaken. This was in response to the manner in which business was conducted, namely in small fairs with small quantities of goods being bought and sold, buyers were afforded the opportunity to inspect the goods and use their own knowledge and skill to determine whether or not to purchase them. As such, it was the buyer’s responsibility to ensure that due diligence was observed at the time of purchase. Failing to inspect the goods resulted in the cost would be lost if the goods purchased were not what was wanted. In this context protection for buyers was to a certain extent non-existent. The only way in which a seller could be held liable was in circumstances where a written warranty was issued or if the case was considered to be one of false affirmation.