Contract Acceptance and Offer

Q1. Understanding the concept of turn off is the important liaison in swear offing this question. A keep down may be be as an agreement amongst two or more get outies that is besotted to be legally binding. This answer will sidle up the principal(prenominal) points to see the differences between an offer and an invitation to treat. An offer may be outlined as a statement of willingness to contract on specify conditions do with the intention that, if accepted thither will arise a binding contract. On the other side, invitation to treat invites the other pot to make an offer which tail be accepted or rejected by the other party.To illustrate them we have to look in indisputable argonas. First area is the display of franks where these are seen as an invitation to treat because shops are inviting batch to make them an offer which shag be accepted or rejected by the shopkeeper. representatives to supports this are Fisher v Bell and pharmaceutic Society v Boots Ch emists. A nonher area in which the gross sales of goods are treated as an invitation to treat is advertisement as seen in partridge v Crittenden. However we have an censure. berth to support this is Carlill v Carbolic where a reward was attached to the advert.This miscue is treated as an offer because it goat be accepted without any future negotiations. Another example where the term of offer is not good valuated we great deal find in sales of land area. Case to support this is Harvey v Facey where the courtyard firm that between them was not a contract just a confusion regarding to the answer to enquiries, so was not an offer and not an invitation to treat. The last two areas where the court may presume that certain acts are invitation to treat is invitation to amicable and auction off sales.Cases which support the situation that invitation to tender is an invitation to treat are Spencer v Harding and Harvela Investments v Royal Trust. First fountain is illustrating th at even you use the word go in the context it doesnt mean that is an offer. Second case highlights that the highest tender is going to be accepted . In the auction cases supported by Payne v Cave we can see that we can withdrew the highest bid forrader the acceptation of the auctioneer because at that point is no contract. Q2. According to contract law an sufferance is a final and unqualified credence of the hurt of an offer.The concept of betrothal can be interpreted in more ways so weve got or so obtains. One of the forms highlights the fact that the acceptance has to match the offer. The person for who was addressed the offer has to accept all the hurt of the offer. They cant introduce bran-new term because this will be seen as a counter offer. Case to support this is Percy v Archital. A request for information about an offer it cant be taken in reflection as a counter offer. Case to support this is Stevenson v McLean where the defendant by answering to some enquire s was not doing a counter offer.Another important rule is when we have two parties with polar standard ground. Case to support this is Butler Machine v Excell-o-Corp where is illustrated the fact that when an offer is made on a document with standard terms and the acceptance is coming on a document with another terms and we still delivery the item, means that we accept the second party terms. An acceptance is taking to thoughtfulness whole if is communicated. Case to support this is Felthouse v Bindley where the claimant considered the inhibit of his nephew as an acceptance.To accept an offer we can follow the methods of acceptance when instant(prenominal) methods of conference are used. In this case the contract takes positioning when and where the acceptance is received as seen in Entores v Miles Far case. If this is received out of normal office hours then acceptance will be reasoned from the start of the next working day. Case to support this is Brinkibon v Stahag. The only elision of the rule that acceptance essential be communicated is the postal rule. This takes place only when is requested or when is an appropriate and reasonable way of communication between the parties.In this case the acceptance takes place when the letter of acceptance was stick on not when was received as seen in Adam v Lindsell case. In case that the letter was sent but it has never arrived is still a valid acceptance. Case to support this is Household Insurance v Grant. Although is an exception of the rule, postal rule will not apply when the letter of acceptance was handed to intermediaries (London and Northern Bank), when the letter is not properly addressed, when the offeror specified that the acceptance must reach to him (Holwell Securities v Hughes) and when is unreasonable to use the post.Q3. musing is important element in the formation of a contract. It is usually describe as being something which represents a benefit for the person who is making a promise or a detriment for the person to whom the promise is made or both . Case to support this is Currie v Misa. Related to the consideration are certain rules which we have to follow. First rule is that consideration must not be past as seen in Re McArdle case where the court supports the representative of the owner because the occupiers didnt provide a good consideration.However we have some exception, case of Lampleigh v Braithwaite where the court decided that it can be a past consideration because the promise of remuneration came afterward the performance, so consideration was precede by a request which firmness a valid consideration. Another rule of the consideration is that it must plump from the promise. This is seen in Tweddle v Atkinson case where the court decide that third parties cant provide the consideration, hence is not having any rights from the agreement.An exception to this rule is Contract(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1990 which allows the third party to sue in case that the name it can be identified in the original contract. Case called Thomas v Thomas is one of the cases who is coming to support the rule where the consideration needs to be sufficient but not inescapably economically adequate . Court decided that in this case the use up of one pound which the widow was paying it was a sufficient consideration which is enough to form a contract.The pursual rule, performance of an alive earthly concern trade is not consideration, is seen in Collins v Godefroy case and wants to highlight the fact that if the people have a duty imposed by law to turn up, they have to do it without any promise of hire from the client because this is not consideration. However, weve got an exception Glasbrook v Glamorgan case where the statutory duty of the police was not sufficient consideration they had gone beyond their existing duty. Performance of an existing contractual duty is not consideration it can be seen from different points of fit.In the first case, Stilk v Myrick the fact that 2 mean deserted is not a good consideration in tell apart to change the contract. However the case called Hartley v Ponsonby is different because 19 people deserted, which is more than half of the total sailors, hence a valid consideration, so the offer of Ponsonby and the acceptance of the crew can be considered a new contract. The next case, Williams v Roffey Brothers is coming with a different point of view because the benefit of not paying the penalty is seen as a consideration.The future(a) case which I will present is about part payment of a debt. Case to support this is Pinnel v Cole where court decided that the payment of a small amount of money from the whole is not a satisfaction for the money lender, therefore the agreement to receive some money at the due date was not a contract because was no consideration. However weve got the case of Hirachand v Temple as an exception because the existing duty to make a payment was owned by a third party, hence was a good consideration.The last part is about the equitable rule of promissory estoppel which allows a contract to be enforced even through there is no consideration as seen in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway case where the tenant was following what he promise but the landlord was enforcing his rights. This case was revised later in London Property v High Trees. Based on the facts that there is a promise that existing legal rights will not be enforced, there is an existing contract and the injured party relied on that promise, skipper Denning stated that the Landlord was estopped from going back on his promise.