Contract Law Cases

Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full

Here the offer was definite in its terms because the department store included subject matter, price, and quantity in its advertisement. The terms and conditions written in the department store’s advertisement states, “8 baseball caps, assorted logos Out they go Saturday, October 19, each . . . $3.00” and “1 gold dolphin necklace on a 20-inch chain Worth $135.00 Now selling for $30.00 FIRST COME . . . FIRST SERVED.” In this statement a price and quantity are included, $3.00 for the 8 caps and a price of $30.00 for the necklace on a 20in chain is specifically stated for sale on Saturday, October 19th. The items themselves are

Mrs. Donoghue, the Claimant, visited a café where her friend bought her an opaque bottle of ginger beer. The Claimant drank half of the bottle and poured the rest into her glass, and a decomposed snail fell out of the bottle into her glass. The Claimant suffered a severe gastroenteritis. She could not sue the café owner for breach of contract to seek damages because she was not a party to that contract: it was between her friend and the café owner. Alternatively, Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer who have, through neglect, allowed the snail to get inside the bottle. When the case reached the House of Lords, court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to their consumers. Lord Atkin gave narrow ratio reasoning on why the duty of care existed in manufacturer- consumer

The first issue to be addressed is whether Abigail’s advertisement for the collection was an offer or an invitation to treat; establishing this will aid our understanding of what Abigail’s position is in terms of her contractual obligation. Advertisements are mostly invitations to treat rather than an offer. The language of Abigail’s advertisement is imperative in trying to determine whether this is an invitation to treat or an offer. In the case, Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), the council used the wording ‘might’ therefore the court held this advertisement to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Paradoxically, in Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) the title of the document read ‘agreement to sale’ therefore this constituted an offer. On balance, Abigail’s advertisement is more akin to that of Gibson v Manchester City Council insofar as she uses phrases such as ‘or near offer’ and ‘or, telephone me, if you prefer’.

Offer: “Offer has a special meaning in contract law. An offer exists where one person indicates to another a willingness to enter into a binding agreement on certain terms.” (Sweeney, Reilly, & Coleman, 2013). An offer is considered as a proposal from the offeror that contains some certain terms, which can be accepted or rejected by the offeree. An offer must be escorted by an aim to be legally bound. In the given case, an offer was emailed to John, the owner of Office Supply from CompyHelp’s salesperson Sophie. Offer is not a request for information. It was an offer not an invitation or an advertisement (Partridge V Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204).

In Madison v Edinburgh City Council, Mr Madison, a council tenant, applied to purchase his council house from the council. He received a letter from Edinburgh City Council saying they 'may be prepared to sell the house to you' for £2180.00. Mr Madison said that the path to the house was in a bad state and queried the price they had stated. The council said the price had been fixed allowing for the condition of the property and would not amend the price.

He sold a bird to a third party who opened its box in the presence of C, an RSPCA inspector. From the bird's leg ring, it was apparent that the bird was a wild bird and had not been bred in captivity. To offer such a bird for sale was an offence under the Protection of Birds Act 1954. P was charged with that offence, and convicted, but the conviction was quashed on appeal. The advertisement was deemed to be an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale.

It is important to differentiate between offer and invitation to treat based on the intention of parties. For instance, the intention of whether the maker of the statement intend to bound by the acceptance of his terms of the proposal without further negotiation, if yes then it can be said he has made the proposal. In the other side, we need to see whether he intend his statement to be the part to continue the negotiation process, if yes then he has made the invitation to threat. One of the circumstance of ITT is an advertisement which attracts the other party to make an offer based on the information inserted in newspaper or magazine. In the case of Partridge v. Crittenden [1986] 2 A11 ER 421, D inserted an advertisement in a magazine for caged bird enthusiasts stating that he had finches for sale at $25each.D was prosecuted and convicted as he makes its illegal to offer finches for sale .D appealed. On appeal, the court held that he had been convicted wrongly as that the advertisement is not an offer but merely is an

The ‘Expression’ or the offer can be advertised in many forms for example newspaper, fax, e-mail and letter. The main stipulation that must be adhered to in any forms of expression is that it must communicate the terms on which the person who made the offer is willing to contract.

1) The court looked at if a reasonable individual would consider the offer as valid. Zehmer’s outward expressions and words constituted a genuine offer to sell. The outward demonstrated intent is all the court looks at, not the secret and inward thought of the defendant. The contract cannot be done in passing or absent-mindedly. Both parts have to come to mutual understanding and agreement (Melvin, 2011). Lucy demonstrated her intent by ensuring that details were in the contract (illustrated by several drafts that were written), and by ensuring both husband and wife signed the contract (Lucy v. Zehmer-Case Brief Summary, 2015).

James had been an attorney for 17 years before deciding to open up a practice of his own. Although some of James client’s followed him to his new firm, James was falling behind on bills and wanted to continue to support his lavish lifestyle, that he decided to start advertising. James figures he could draw clients in by advertising for new clients $200 flat fee, however, omitted from the letter that it was an advertisement and that $200 flat fee only applied to a case which required an hour or less of preparation time. James often waits outside emergency rooms to hand out letters, leaves plaintiffs and via mail for in-person contact. Susie was recently involved in a motor accident due to the faulty machinery of car company A. Susie is badly injured, received an advertisement letter from James and immediately called him for consultation. James previously was on a team of lawyers in this old firm that represented “car company A” in a dispute about faulty machinery parts used for their cars; this case involved protected information. James knows “car company A” history and wants to use this to build a case and decided to take on Susie’s case, convincing himself that this could be the case that makes his start-up firm big

The newspaper advertisement is not an offer but an invitation to treat. In Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, it was decided that ‘a contract is not completed until, the customer having indicated the articles which he needs, the shopkeeper, or someone on his

The scenario I have been given highlights the main complexity of contract law. It touches on issues such as unilateral contracts, revocation as well as advertisement. I will be advising Mick (claimant) answering: Whether Yummy chocolate is liable to give a year supply of chocolate as advertised?

In the case presented, Biff Smith, the Chief of Police of the local department ordered a set of bicycles off of a local storeowner, Dirk Right. This was no simple order though, in fact Biff intended on starting a bike patrol unit within the local department. Biff went to Dirks Bicycle shop to place an order. The order was for five mountain bikes to be used for patrol so they had to be custom made in order to sport the police decals. Biff was very familiar with the Schwinn bicycle company so he asked Dirk to order him five “top of the line” bikes at the “best price”. This simple statement implied that Biff not only wanted the bikes but he intended on paying for them as well. So soon after Dirk accepted the deal

In the case stated above, it’s no offer was made by Bob and Cecil. Bob views an online advertisement on Gumtree offering a second hand iphone 6. The advertisement contains the seller’s name, Cecil, and an address in Maze Hill. He did visit the seller but at the end Cecil doesn’t want to sell the iphone to Bob as few minutes earlier he had received a call from third parties that has offering a better price for the iphone 6. At last, Bob decided to sue Cecil for his irresponsibility attitude .