Offer and Acceptance

1422 WordsFeb 9, 20136 Pages
In the given question the issue is whether there is a binding contract between Gerard and Reg. A contract can be defined as a voluntary assumption of obligation .In order to establish a contract there must be an offer followed by an acceptance. In order to see whether the parties have come to an agreement the court would look at the intention of the parties. Intention will be looked at objectively .In applying the objective test the courts consider whether the reasonable person in the other parties’ position would conclude that there was an intention to enter in to an agreement. A good example of the application of the objective test is provided in Centrovincial Estates Plc vs. merchant investors’ assurance Company Ltd. It should not,…show more content…
Please sent us your title deed in order that we may get early possession”. Finally in this case Privy Council advised that no contract existed between the parties. The first Telegram was simply a request for information. So at no stage the Defendant make a definite offer that could be accepted. By comparing the situation with Harvey vs. facey , it clearly says that the first e-mail from Reg is just a sharing of information or invitation to treat. After the invitation to treat or sharing of information, the next place is for an offer by the other party otherwise it is still on negotiation process. The reply e-mail from Gerard on 2nd march at 5.30 pm says that “he will take all of the CDs and is willing to pay £1000 and would collect the CDs.”The e-mail is final, certain and unambiguous .suggesting that Gerard had an intention of making an offer .Therefore a conclusion can be drawn that the e-mail is an offer. Since an offer has been established it needs to be analyzed whether this offer has been accepted. Acceptance must be final and unqualified assent to the terms of the offer. For acceptance to be effective there are certain rules to be satisfied. The rules that need to be satisfied are; acceptance must be unconditional: if the words subject to contracts are used when an offer is accepted that is not a valid acceptance (chillingworth vs.
Open Document