Evaluation Of A Letter Of Acceptance

There is consideration present here since according to the ‘Doctrine of Consideration, ' promises will legally enforceable if you ‘ask for something in return for ' something else. Here, Ken asks for £12,000 in return for his work to build Jack 's conservatory. Therefore, when Jack ‘accordingly contacts Ken to say that he will be employing him to do the building work, ' Jack has accepted Ken 's offer, and both parties have entered into a legally binding contract. Jack 's statement qualifies as an acceptance since there is correspondence between the two parties, whereby both the offer and acceptance are on the same terms; there is nexus, where the acceptance is in response to the offer; and finally, there is communication on both parts. Moreover, when Jack states that he will accept the ‘most competitive ' tender, he could argue that the recommendation from ‘Barnie, ' his ‘neighbour ' who expresses that ‘Ken is an excellent builder ' constitutes Jack 's meaning of the ‘most competitive. ' However, this is not relevant unless Bob wishes to argue in court that Jack 's proposal was indeed an invitation to tender, which constitutes an offer, as according to Harvela.

-the reasoning: the completed contract was mailed before the attempted revocation was received. There was evidence to support it and a binding contract must stand.

"Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike." Theodore Roosevelt. Students should demonstrate scholarship, leadership, service, citizenship, and character because of three reasons. One, if students demonstrate these qualities they are more likely to get better grades and get reprimanded less. Another, without these traits, a student would have far less opportunities in the future. Finally, as students grow they will gain much more wisdom if they allow themselves to work on demonstrating these characteristics. Overall, these qualities are very important in the present, and in the future.

The area of Law concerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and counter offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) directly links to the case between Bruce and Ken. As Bruce is once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legal obligation to sell Ken the rare vinyl at the original price of £40. When Ken rejected the original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruce’s original offer to lapse and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new terms, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapsed. When Ken came back insisting that there was a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had lapsed and no contract existed between then.

I am emailing you on behalf of the AP Psychology acceptance letters. It came to my attention that letters have been sent out but I did not receive an email stating if I was accepted or rejected, and I'm not sure whether you're still looking through applications, or if I was rejected. Do you think you could clear up this confusion for me? Sorry for bugging you, thank

According to Melvin (2011), consideration is most often when the offeror holds an offer open for a period. For arguments sake, and this e-mail constituted an agreement, the consideration would be the one month from Chou received the e-mail and the fax request from BTT.

The Mailbox rule increases the risk for an inability to fulfill contracts. Based on the Common Law system, an offer cannot be withdrawn but can be revoked by the offeror. In the Restatement (second) of Contracts, § 42 “an offeree’s power of acceptance is terminated when the offeree receives from the offeror a manifestation of an intention not to enter into the proposed contract.” That means an offer would be void when revoked information reaches the offeree. And there is a gap between the revoked information is mailed and when it is received. Therefore, during this gap, if an acceptance was mailed, according to the Mailbox rule, a contract is created. Obviously, under this situation, the Mailbox rule could cause a party to be unable to fulfill a contract. More unfairly, this rule would even punish the offeror with good faith because the offeror has no ability to fulfill the contract, which causes them to violate the contract’s obligation.

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

Consideration is a promise or performance that the promisor demands as the price of the promise. Past consideration is something that has been performed in the past and which, therefore, cannot be consideration for a promise made in the present. Promises made to another based on moral obligation lack consideration and are not enforceable. Services performed by one family member on behalf of another family member are presumed to have been rendered in obedience to a moral obligation without expectation of consideration. An example of past and moral consideration would be the hypothetical we are discussing. A binding contract does not exist between Gerwin and Baker because the element of consideration is missing. The consideration for Gerwin's

When my report card arrives to my house I will right away go to the mail and get the card to see what my credits were. I will be the first one to open the report card because I be the only one at my house and I would not be able to hold my patience until my mom comes home. Once she is at home I will give her my report card so that she could see what I got for my classes and when she sees the report card she would be so surprise because I never failed more than one class and this would be the first time I failed more than one class. When my mom sees my grades in the report card I think that she will say that I say a lot of things to my sister and make fun of her for getting bad grades and now I am the one getting bad grades. I also think that

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

In BROGDEN v METROPOLITAN RAIL CO it was held the railway company had accepted by placing orders since the amendment of the document, and in TRENTHAM LTD v ARCHITAL LUXFER the court used the 'reasonable man' to identify whether or not there has been acceptance. Both cases seemed to have reasonable outcomes; therefore the courts had been provided with satisfactory rules to help them reach a appropriate verdict. There are various different rules regarding acceptance. There must be a communication of acceptance from the offeree to the offeror. The case of YATES BUILDING v PULLEYN deals whether there had been a prescribed acceptance or not. It was held that there was no practical difference to the offeror therefore the acceptance method was binding. However in the case of ENTORES LTD v MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION there was no prescribed acceptance, yet it was held that the contract was formed in England as that was there acceptance had been received by telex. Other rules that can be used to decide whether there has been acceptance include a waiver of communication of acceptance; silence, which isn't a valid acceptance; ignorance, generally there isn't a binding contract; and acceptance via post using the postal rule. The postal rule can often be misused, as it states that a contract has been formed as

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.

Acceptance is what differentiates us from animals, accepting others for what they are is an act of humanity. It may be difficult, or appear pointless, however accepting those you do not fully understand could only result in positive outcomes for both parties.