Please insert your name and address on the top of this sheet and return it, with your Assignment to the Association at the above address.
Q1)
The area of law the scenario concerns is contract law specifically raising issues of offer and acceptance. A contract is founded upon an agreement that arises from an offer being accepted. Pollock L.J. expanded on this statement by saying that “One party proposes his terms, the other accepts, rejects or meets them with a counter proposal and thus, they go on until there is a final refusal and breaking off, or, until one of them names terms which the other can accept as they stand".Offer, which is some form of communication indicating the terms of the contract. Olive has made an offer to sell the car for £13,000. Her intention is to make a unilateral contract to the public at large that can be accepted by anyone. However, according to Partridge v Crittenden this type of contract would be considered to be an invitation to treat as the advertisement is in the column of the classical car journal, which may lead to further bargaining between parties.An invitation to treat is not an offer to sell, but simply an invitation to others to make offers to purchase and may apply to auctions, catalogues, displays in shop windows or to advertisements .The onus of making an offer is on Paul, which he had done so by writing to olive at her home address. An offer is only when all the conditions are accepted unconditionally, as illustrated by Tinn v Hoffman, Paul agrees to buy the car at the asking price of £13,000. The acceptance of this must be communicated by Olive, as there is no contract until Paul knows that his offer has been accepted, this principle was explained by Lord Denning in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation. From the facts there is no indication of acceptance by Olive. However the Courts may imply that performance of reading the letter of offer may amount to an acceptance according to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, but this is unlikely since it would mean that Olive would be about to create a contract with numerous people, which would not be practical. In regards to any contractual relationships arising between Quentin and Olive by way of accepting by leaving a message via telephone, it is important to point out acceptance occurs at the moment the offeror hears that his offer has been accepted as illustrated in (Domb and Another -v- Isoz (1980)). But, if for any other reason the offeror is unable to hear the acceptance, then there is no binding contract. In this case Quentin does not hear an acceptance from Olive thus there is no binding contract. There must be agreement in the form of an identifiable offer and a valid acceptance. A contract cannot come into existence merely because two parties have achieved a consensus. This is because whereas both parties want the same conclusion, there has been no specific acceptance of a specific offer. The contract will not come into existence until either A accepts B’s offer to sell or B accepts A’s offer to purchase.
Q2)
First and foremost in assessing Johns liability it is important to point out there must be an intention to create legal obligations between the parties. There are many agreements that exist where the parties do not intend them to be legally binding. These are usually contracts of a domestic or a social nature, between relatives or friends. Thus it could either be described as a void, voidable or unenforceable contract depending upon the circumstances. In regards Joan and Elizabeth holding John responsible for any losses that they may have occurred it is essential to recognise this ‘meeting’ would be considered to be a social arrangement and not legally binding. Thus issues regarding offer, acceptance and consideration would not arise.
Q3)
In assessing how the contractual capacity of a minor differentiates from that of an adult, primarily it is important to acknowledge that the law allows binding agreements to be entered into by any person. However, there are other groups which may include for example; mentally incapacitated persons, those suffering from excess of alcohol and vitally ‘minors,’ who, in normal circumstances, cannot enter into a binding agreement. The reason for this is that the law will assume that they are incapable of knowing what they are doing, and so they need to be protected from unscrupulous third parties.
Crucially the most important of these classes are those that the law classifies as ‘minors’ this refers to any person under the age of 18 (s.1 Family Law Reform Act, 1969). In law, a minor's contracts are divided into those which are valid, void and those which are voidable, and this is, by far, the best method of assessing whether, in any particular set of circumstances, a contract with a person under the age of 18 has any effect.
There are only two types of agreements in relation to minors which may constitute a valid contract. They consist of the following; Firstly, contracts for necessaries where minors are obliged to pay for any necessaries that are supplied to them. This does not solely refer to essential items such as food, clothing and shelter but is extended to include any items or services which are needed to maintain that person's station in life. However, it is important to point out the case law that supported this position dates from the turn of the century when the class system was more divided than it is today. Now, we have a statutory definition with regard to the sale of ‘goods’, that can be found in s.3 of the Sale Of Goods Act, 1979, "goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery". Thus, if sufficient of the goods in question have already been provided, then any excess is not considered as necessary and thus, a contract to provide it is unenforceable as illustrated In the case of Nash -v- Inman (1908). Secondly, contracts for the minor's benefit may be valid since they only relate to contracts for education, apprenticeship, training or work experience. Where a minor enters a contract from which he obtains an education or training for a trade or profession, or, alternatively, gains experience in a trade or profession, he is bound by it. Occasionally, there will be a dispute and when this happens it is up to the Court to decide whether the contract is really ‘for the minor's benefit’. When deciding this, the Court will look at the contract as a whole. It has also been held that a minor cannot (in the absence of fraud) be compelled to repay moneys paid for goods ordered from him which he did not deliver and he cannot be liable for instalments due under a hire purchase agreement, as illustrated in Mercantile Union Guarantee Corporation -v- Ball (1937). By way of s.1 of the Infants Relief Act, 1874 which has now been replaced by The Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 there were two ways in which contracts were deemed as void which are, contracts for the repayment of money lent or to be lent and contracts for goods supplied or to be supplied other than necessaries. Finally, voidable contracts are ones which are valid and binding on a minor unless he repudiates them during minority or within a reasonable time of attaining majority.In assessing statutory law and the protection of adults on the whole courts consider contracts that concern minors can be voidable at any time. In other words they are not set in concrete and the courts can, if they wish refuse to enforce them. This is a powerful signal to businesses and others to be careful when they are dealing with minors rather than adults. This was seen by may to be a bit one sided. In return Minors Contract Act 1987 allowed the return of goods purchased by minors to in some way compensate the adult who has perhaps entered into a contract without the knowledge that the other party is in fact a minor, thus the two key provisions of importance. Firstly, an adult who guarantees repayment of a loan for a minor must pay the balance if the minor fails in their repayments. If there is no guarantee by an adult, however the courts will not enforce repayments of a loan by a minor. Before the 1987 act the courts could not insist that an adult repay the loan. Secondly, restitution where goods that have been acquired unjustly may be handed back to the original owner. The wording of the act in this area however only says ‘may’ order restitution. It is upto the court to decide whether it thinks restitution is just. If the adult has put pressure on the minor then the court will have the power to avoid restitution.
