Is There A Breach Of Contract Between Both Parties, Because If Revoked?

1773 WordsApr 4, 20178 Pages
1. Is there a breach of contract between both parties, especially if revoked? A contract is very clear and concise, regarding its components and requirements. Hence, it includes an offer, acceptance (by both parties), and consideration. There was an intent by Jenny to buy the car, “I am interested in buying your car”, followed by consideration which shows a reliance on the owner selling it for $23,000. The offeree allegedly ‘agreed’ to this ‘offer’ by his performance for the promise made, “I will take the car off Sometree. I am really excited for you to buy this car”, eventhough Jenny was only ‘interested’. Thus, a clear miscommunication in words is present, not resulting in a binding contract in which Jenny is bound by. This assures that…show more content…
The dialogue between the parties suggests its conditional nature; the fulfilment of said conditions would lead to a binding contract. The nature of a conditional offer is also evident in the Financings Ltd v Stimpson 1962 case, where the Defendant in the case, refused to pay charges against the appellant. Consequently, the plaintiff sued him for breach of purchase agreement. It was held that the Defendants offer was subject to the agreement, that the condition of the car should continue in its undamaged state and that the failure of the condition would deem the contract non-binding. Hence, this case relates with Jenny’s circumstances, in which there is a breach of conditional contract, which should be legally rectified. It is also apparent that the decision of revocation is apparent from one of the parties. Thus, revocation is legal and effective only when it has been communicated to the offeree. Henceforth, the issue is that the owner of the car has not effectively communicated this to the other party, only until after both parties accepted the offer. Therefore, the owner of the red sports car does not have grounds for revocation. Similarly, this was upheld in the Stephenson Jaques & Co. v McLean (1880) case. The judges decided that “McLean was authorised to revoke the offer before Monday concluded, which was not effective until it reached the plaintiffs, Lush J charged the defendant the amount of £1900, which was to be paid to the plaintiff’s”.
Open Document