Analysis Of Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

1390 Words6 Pages
The initial agreement between Joe and John regarding the purchase of the car for £2,100 was agreed by word of mouth by both parties. It is my personal opinion that Joe should have only have paid the agreed £2,100 for the vehicle and refused John’s later counter-offer the following morning as there was already a binding agreement in place between them. The law relating to this is that acceptance must be unconditional, that the offeree must have accepted the exact terms advocated by the offeror unconditionally; i.e. without establishing any additional terms which the offeror has not had the latitude to contemplate. The instigation of these additional new terms are referred to as a “counter offer”; its influence in law is to distinguish the…show more content…
In determining whether a statement amounts to a term or representation, the courts will look at four factors which consist of the following: . The parole evidence rule: Is where only the terms included within a written document are terms and any verbal statements will be classed as representations. . Relative expertise of the parties: If the seller has the greater knowledge, this would likely amount to a contractual term. Reciprocally if the purchaser has the greater knowledge, this would amount to be a representation. This was found to be the facts in the case of Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1975] 1 WLR 370 Court of Appeal and in the case of Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1 WLR 623 Court of Appeal . The importance of the statement and reliance: This is where the purchaser specifies to the seller, the importance of the statement, this would likely be held as a term. This was this in the following cases, Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS 844. Ecay v Godfrey [1947] 80 Lords rep 286. Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81. .Time: The longer time lapse between the statement being made and entering the contract, the more likely it will be classed as representation. Routledge v Mckay [1945] 1 WLR 615. Misrepresentation is one of several sabotaging components that can affect the validity of a contract. This occurs when one
Open Document