What Contract Law Is Concerned With A Contract

-the reasoning: the letter agreement left the point of delivery up to future negotiation and was not specific to all essential terms. The letter was unenforceable agreement to agree and there was no contract.

If Seller fails to comply with this contract for any other reason, Seller will be in default and Buyer may, as Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy, terminate this contract and receive from Seller the deposit, thereby releasing both parties from the contract.

Harry (H) who is the father of James (J) is attempting to sue J for a breach in contract and is seeking damages of $30,000 which he believes is the outstanding amount that is owed to him by J. This case touches on the fundamental concepts of contract law where H can only claim damages if the formation of a valid contract between the two parties is evident via the elements of a contract, including intention, agreement, consideration, legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of objects must be established. Once these elements are satisfied, the terms of the contract need to be evaluated to deem whether the contract between H and J is enforceable. Once it has been established that the contract is

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

Nevertheless, the postal rule of acceptance is subject to some limitations. In Enthores v. Miles Far East Corp (1955) it was held that the postal rule did not apply to telexes and it was confined to non-instantaneous forms of communication. This solution is logical. The question is to know whether the latest QuickPost private letter delivery service could be regarded as an instantaneous form of communication. The delay between posting and delivery is very short (2 days) but there is however a delay. That is why the postal rule of acceptance should be applied in that case. Even if the private letter delivery service is quicker than a regular post service it can not be regarded as an instantaneous form of communication.

An offer is an expression of willingness to form a contract and is made with the intention to be bound by specified terms once it has been accepted. Acceptance of an offer is necessary for a contract to be formed and the postal rule is a way of providing acceptance. In order for a contract to be established, it is important that an offer is made and the acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror. However, this is not necessarily the case under the postal rule, once acceptance is communicated by post; the contract is formed as soon as the letter is sent. This is set out in the case of Adams v Linsell defendants offer was delayed which subsequently caused the plaintiffs communication of acceptance. The defendants sold the goods to a third party. The court decided a contract was formed before the transaction with the third party had took place, on the basis that the acceptance was

Nicole is not likely to succeed in receiving the 10% discount. She failed to meet the condition clearly stated in the advertisement: ‘Simply download the 10% discount voucher and attach it to the email you send with your order’. Nowhere does it say the voucher should be downloaded, printed off and mailed. It asks the voucher be attached in the email along with the order. MI could be successful in arguing that Nicole did not meet the conditions of the advertisement to receive the discount, and therefore, is not entitled to it. Nicole, in her defence may try to apply the postal rule confirmed in Adams v Lindsell and Henthorn v Fraser, and claim she mailed in the voucher with Sharon’s papers accepting the 10% discount offer. Although, MI did not receive the voucher at all as it was lost, she could refer to Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant that states if the postal acceptance is properly addressed and posted, the postal rule can apply even if it

affect how parties interacted in the sale of goods and services. Professor Chrisman has advertised that he has a hog (not to be confused with a pig), worth $100 to him, for sale and now has two potential purchasers. Buyer one, Professor Todd, has offered to purchase the hog today from $150 (he is risk adverse and believes that price of pigs is going to increase drastically over the next year). Buyer two, Professor Hesch, has offered to purchase the hog next Saturday at graduation for $200. If Professor Chrisman lives in a system without contract law he will accept Professor Todd’s offer of $150 today because he will be worried that Professor Hesch will change his mind before graduation and Professor Todd will have bought another hog. The law’s failure to enforce contract law has caused an inefficient misallocation of resources because Professor Chrisman cannot enforce the promise made by Professor Hesch and will not be incentivized to take the risk of selling the hog to him.

Nicole is not likely to succeed in receiving the 10% discount. She failed to meet the condition clearly stated in the advertisement: ‘…attach it to the email you send with your order’. Nowhere does it say the voucher should be printed off and mailed. It asks for the voucher to be emailed. MI could be successful in arguing that Nicole did not meet the conditions to receive the discount and therefore, is not entitled to it. In her defence Nicole, may try to apply the postal rule, established in Adams v Lindsell, and claim she mailed in the voucher with Sharon’s papers accepting the 10% discount offer. Although MI did not receive the voucher at all, she could refer to Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant that stated if the postal acceptance is properly addressed and posted, the postal rule can apply even if it never reaches its destination. Regrettably, it was not addressed properly, it was attached with a sticky note accompanying Sharon’s mail.

The scenario presented in this assessment centers itself around the identification of particular legal issues that are integral to contract law. It also begs one to apply legal principles in such a way as to determine the outcome of a legal dispute as well as see the dispute from the perspectives of both parties involved. A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more parties that is intended to be legally binding. According to Graw (2012), every contract has a number of essential elements. These include the formation of the contract, an offer, agreement, consideration, the intention, and legality . In order to determine whether Barry’s and Sarah’s communications constituted a contract, there are particulars within this

An issue with this agreement is what consideration has been provided for this bargain . Consideration need not be adequate but must be of value in the eyes of the law . Treating Mr Smith with respect and care (clause 3) and agreeing to make their best effort to keep to the schedule (clause 4) may be sufficient consideration.

The fact is Liam sent a letter on April 28th, it takes long time than expected and received by HFC on May 7th, so HFC terminated old offer with £700, and regard the acceptance as a one of an new offer with £850. Nevertheless, it holds that Liam does not owe £175 to HFC. It stands to reason

Whether “Heads of Agreement” written by Brett constituted documentation and if so, then does it amount to form the terms of the contract

In this scenario by posting a cheque Sasha demonstrates she is aware of the consequences and accepts she is in a fit state to enter into this contract. This action is acceptance of the offer and there is a valid contract between Sasha and Arthur. The postal rule applies to this situation, the case of Adam Vs Lindsell (1818)

Each chapter begins with a general introduction to the topic covered and the learning outcomes you should achieve within that chapter. Following that, the topic is divided into subsections. Each subsection provides a reference to the recommended readings in McKendrick’s textbook and Poole’s casebook (see 1.2 below). At a minimum, you should read these;