1. Nicole And Her Purchases. This Situation Becomes Tricky

1969 WordsJan 7, 20178 Pages
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

More about 1. Nicole And Her Purchases. This Situation Becomes Tricky

Open Document