Introduction of Business Law Contracts Assignment
Get free written samples from subject experts and Assignment Writing help in UK.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
In the following situation, Linda Chan placed an ad in the Sunday Chronicle newspaper on 7 March for the purchase of her Grand old piano for £6000 money. She went on to say that the response must be on paper and also that the proposal would've been considered only until 4 p.m. on 12 March. This piano is meant to be given to the very first buyer that comes in, and her desk's contact information and location are listed (Kurbonov et al. 2021).
Indra wrote a proposal on the 8 March expressing her wish to acquire the piano for £2,000 in hand and indeed the remaining at the end of the month, but it was acquired by Linda Chan somewhat on 10 March, which she neglected. Since Linda Chan did not respond, Indra sent over a new note saying that the whole sum would be paid upfront on 11 March, and Linda Chan received it on 13 March (Kurbonov et al. 2021).
Rod called Linda Jane about 7:00 p.m. on 11 March to convey his wish to purchase the piano for the full purchase price in money. Nevertheless, this was not business hours, and Rod could only send a text on the business telephone number, which Linda Chan had got on 15 March due to her inability to travel to his due to medical reasons. The piano was already being auctioned to the Ram of Southfields in London at this moment (Knapp et al. 2019).
Meanwhile, every one of the parties involved, Indira, Rod, and Ram, profess to have reached a deal with Linda Chan over the piano.
RULE OF THE LAW
An offer is a proposal from one person to the other that they are ready to reach a deal on specific parameters. After inferred or verbal consent, a contract is formed. Furthermore, an agreement is only meant to be in force after the promisee has provided an offer and acceptance that was originally made to the proposer. (O'Sullivan et al. 2020).
The notion of acceptance and proposal is the foundation of any deal. There must have been a side that made the request and another side that accepted the request in response to an offer to be formed. Typically, services or/and goods are shared between different sides during an agreement (Governatori et al. 2018).
By valid acceptance and offer, a contractually enforceable and genuine agreement is made. The acceptance, as well as the proposal, are two methods for determining whether or not it is a contractual relationship party. The acceptance, like the proposal, marks the start of a legal contract. And it was only after the request was accepted that it became a contract (O'Sullivan et al. 2020).
There may be different classifications for expressing a proposal, and the permissible form may vary from state to state. A proposal can be presented in a variety of ways, including mail, telegraph, magazine advertisement, email, and behaviour, or vocally, until the ground for agreement formation is disclosed by the proposer.
If the partners are unable to negotiate on their conditions, or whether the viability of the contract is raised as a question that must be resolved using the appropriate principle (Governatori et al. 2018).
When a bid is accepted, it must lead to a legally binding agreement. A simple social invite cannot be viewed as an attempt because accepting such an offer does not create a legal connection. For instance, 'person-1' called 'person-2' to supper, which 'B' graciously approved. It's just a friendly request. And 'person-1' would not be held accountable if he failed to feed person-2 supper.
A binding agreement can only be founded on the principles of a proposal if it contains all of the agreement's main terms. The basic requirement of a sale contract of commodity, for example, comprises 4 essential phrases that must be contained in a legitimate and verified proposal (Kurbonov et al. 2021). The payment, pricing, shipment (which includes the settlement date), and an extended product description is provided, as well as a reasonable explanation of the connected situation and type of services, are the four essential needs. Till these essential prerequisites are completed, the jury is just not allowed to regard the trade receivables as a legal proposal. This could, though, be interpreted as a promotion. Advertising in Dutch law is typically a solicitation to make a bid instead of a proposal itself (Benoliel et al. 2019).
Denial of the proposal
First, before the offer has been accepted, the proposer has the right to revoke the proposal. This cancellation, on the other hand, must be informed to the claimant that the proposer may do it itself. The cancellation is stated to take the shape of an offering in the instance of the formation of a proposal for the entire globe, comparable to the specific instance of Carlill. However, if the agreement's linked choice is encased, or whether the proposal is of a company in which the issue is unchangeable for a fixed timeframe as advised by the proposer, the proposal is just not deemed to be changeable (Klee et al. 2018).
When a proposal results in a unilateral contract, the proposal is typically unable to be cancelled once the promisee begins to fulfil it (Kurbonov et al. 2021).
Regulations regarding the legal acceptance of the terms –
- The deal's approval can only be given to the person who agreed to the deal. Approval of any particular deal or offer could only be granted by the person who proposed. Any engagement of a 3rd person in the communication of acceptance is indeed not permissible, regardless of whether the promisee was aware of it beforehand (Ante et al. 2021).
Using the instance of Boulton v Jones, as an illustration, Boulton acquired Brocklehurst's firm but failed to disclose this data to his several debtors. Jones, who purchased with Boulton, is among his debtors. The purchase is approved and provided by Boulton, but Jones declined to accept it since there are outstanding bills with the Brocklehurst. It was decided that because Bolton hadn't ever made a bid, he was unable to receive the order, which indicated that no agreement had been formed. (Zhang et al. 2019).
As a result, any proposition depicted in the form of a standard offer might be approved by anyone with pertinent data.
- Need of unqualified and total approval - acceptance must be both absolute and impartial. Any conditioned agreement in which a Counteroffer is designed to negate the genuine proposal is not accepted. Furthermore, an assertion must be made within the timeframe and in the way specified. Regardless of whether a definition of the method as defined exists, a statement must be fine and acceptable, as encountered in a typical commercial setting. Until an offer is accepted, it lapses due to the offeror's fatal injury or lunacy. A deal ends if the subject matter is later found to be illegal or destroyed. There may be an implicit assurance of approval as a result of a certain action or behaviour (Benoliel et al. 2019).
The law, though, does not recognize quietness as approval. It implies that a proposer cannot assert acceptance of the terms before even getting a response from the claimant (Kurbonov et al. 2021). However, there are exceptions to the general norm. It is mentioned that the non-acceptance must be informed to the proposer in three weeks of the date upon which the proposal is made. However, the stillness will be interpreted as consent.
- A well-conveyed approval - Any offer may only become a contract if the proposed consent was given to the offeror promptly. Furthermore, when there is no provision about the form of the specified format, effective communication takes place in a designated manner or the ordinary course of events (Bocek et al. 2018).
In addition, if the client accepts the offering, he or she must be fully informed of the deal's development. Regardless of whether he has an understanding of the proposal, he is incapable of articulating his approval.
- There ought to be a regulated way of acceptance - the offer must be accepted in a defined way that conforms with the offeror's requirement. Within lack of any specified manner, it is necessary to get a sensible way that will be used in the ordinary course of events.
Nevertheless, if the proposer does not demand the specified format after the bid is accepted by some other method, it is assumed that perhaps the offered assent has agreed (Ante et al. 2021).
The proposer requires that the offering be accepted within a specific time frame. In the absence of such a timeframe, a fair period should be allowed for acceptance well before the deal ends. However, there is no widely recognized definition of what constitutes a set time before the law; therefore, it is entirely reliant on the facts, conditions, and accepted standards. (Bocek et al. 2018).
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
In most cases, advertising is viewed as an agreement that was signed or a treatment request rather than an offer. The person who places the ad is not obligated to sell it. According to the case of Partridge v Crittenden (1968 1 WLR 1204), the defendant was accused of providing for purchase protected birds – Bramble finch hens and cocks - that was promoted for purchase in the press. This ad was not a solicitation for a purchase. According to Lord Parker CJ, seeing advertisements as proposals has no business sense so because the individual who is presenting the ad may find himself in a situation where he is obligated to the agreement for offering more of the goods that he owns (Cai et al. 2021). In addition, according to the judgment of Fisher v Bell (1961 1 QB 394), exhibiting the selling of flicked knives in a store does not appear to violate the laws that prohibit the selling of an assault weapon. Even when a store accidentally displays a product to sell at a lower price, it is under no agreement to sell the thing at a certain price. (Luguri et al. 2021).
Linda Chan placed advertising in the press in the study case. The ad is not intended to be construed as a solicitation. She just invited me to propose rather than make a formal offering. Indra also offered her the opportunity to purchase the piano for merely £2000 in hand. Linda Chan, on the other hand, declined her proposal, implying that the parties involved had not formed an agreement (Grover et al. 2019).
It is also stated in the subject at hand that Indra first agreed to pay only £2000 in cash, with the balance expected by the end of the month. However, after receiving no response from Linda Chan, she withdrew her offer and stated that the entire sum would be paid upfront. But Linda Chan's cancelled proposal did not arrive at the prescribed period of 4:00 p.m. until 12 March, as stated in her ad and invite to bid. As previously stated, the cancelled offer must be made at a precise moment and in a specific manner to create an agreement, and Indra's proposal did not meet these requirements. This implies that she is unable to maintain a favourable deal with Linda Chan (Kreitner et al. 2021).
Rod's offer, too, was made over the cell phone at 7:00 p.m., which is not deemed business hours. Linda Chan got that on 15 March since she had been unable to go somewhere to work for the previous two days owing to sickness. Plus, according to her published ad offer made, the offering must be prepared in the form of a written notification, and the bid will be considered only until 4 p.m. on 12 March. Rod's proposal was not in the verbal or written notification, nor has it been made within the specified timeframe. Linda Chan, on the other hand, did not take the proposal. As a result, the company had no acceptable agreement with her for the sale of the Grand piano. (Kreitner et al. 2021).
Linda Chan, on either side, is known for merely requesting to present. She wasn't obliged by any agreement to take either Indra's or Rod's proposal. And true to her wishes, she sold the magnificent guitar to Ram. She also isn't obligated to respond to any of the individuals involving the purchase of the piano and thus sold it to Ram in a planned way that might be regarded as a decent contract between both two parties (Cai et al. 2021).
Using the court rulings of Byrne v. Van Tienhoven as an instance, Tienhoven addressed a note to Byrne for the selling of a few of his tin dishes. However, he quickly changed his opinion and sent a second letter rescinding his previous offer. However, Byrne had long accepted his original bid. This results in a legitimate battle that will change the rules on the subject for the rest of the time (Kurbonov et al. 2021).
Surprisingly, the algorithm did not find the revoke to be very successful due to immediate interaction with Byrne. Van Tienhoven's withdrawal of the offer would've been deemed genuine if it had been conveyed before the acceptance. He might also make use of such a third party to cancel the proposal in his favour.
Dickinson v. Dodds is another example of the case law that shows how an offering might be revoked. The first party is discovered making an offer on the other party's estate. Eventually, he decided to resell to a third person (Kurbonov et al. 2021). The second part is now informed of the estate's selling by a fourth party. It was, nevertheless, deemed legal because the first party was found to have followed a legal method for withdrawal agency offering by revealing information about the second party to the fourth party (Kreitner et al. 2021).
Linda Chan did not have a good agreement with either Indra or Rod, based on the above-mentioned examination of the matter according to the norm of the contract act. She declined Indra's offer, implying that there was no agreement between the two sides, making her responsible to Indra. The retracted proposal was not received within the specified timeframe, indicating it would not be accepted. Rod's offer also wasn't following the standard written agreement. Linda Chan was also approached by Rod after she'd sold the Grand piano to Ram. She had an excellent contract with Ram, which resulted in the two contracting parties signing a deal, and the piano was sold. Indra and Rod, on the other hand, were not like that. As a result, they aren't allowed to establish any form of agreement with Linda Chan for the buying of the Grand old piano.
Ante, L., 2021. Smart contracts on the blockchain–A bibliometric analysis and review. Telematics and Informatics, 57, p.101519.
Benoliel, U. And Becher, S.I., 2019. The duty to read the unreadable. BCL Rev., 60, p.2255.
Bocek, T. And Stiller, B., 2018. Smart contracts–blockchains in the wings. In Digital marketplaces unleashed (pp. 169-184). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cai, C.W., 2021. Triple?entry accounting with blockchain: How far have we come?. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), pp.71-93.
Governatori, G., Idelberger, F., Milosevic, Z., Riveret, R., Sartor, G. And Xu, X., 2018. On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 26(4), pp.377-409.
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2019. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Aspen Publishers.
Luguri, J. And Strahilevitz, L.J., 2021. Shining a light on dark patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis, 13(1), pp.43-109.
O'Sullivan, J., 2020. O'Sullivan and Hilliard are the Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
Zhang, M., 2019. Chinese contract law theory & practice. Brill.
Kreitner, R., 2021. Speculations of contract, or how contract law stopped worrying and learned to love risk. In Governing Risks (pp. 439-481). Routledge.
Kurb?nov, K., 2021. Religious-legal bases of activity of Islamic credit institutions. ????? ??????? ????????????, 1(1).
Grover, P., Kar, A.K., Janssen, M. And Ilavarasan, P.V., 2019. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and user acceptance of blockchain technology for digital transactions–insights from user-generated content on Twitter. Enterprise Information Systems, 13(6), pp.771-800.
Klee, L., 2018. International construction contract law. John Wiley & Sons.