Dodgy developers are looking to claim compensation from office suppliers for delivering there workstations later than contracted, which in turn resulted in dodgy developers refurbishment being late and thereby they suffered loss.
Dodgy developers are looking to claim compensation from office suppliers for delivering there workstations later than contracted, which in turn resulted in dodgy developers refurbishment being late and thereby they suffered loss. Dodgy developers had a contract with office supplies, which stated that office supplies would deliver the workstations on Monday the 28th of November. The contract was made over the phone and it can be assumed that this contract was binding. After this contract was made office supplies sent out there terms and conditions. On trying to seek damages from office supplies for the workstations being late resulting in loss, office supplies referred dodgy dealers to their terms and conditions one of which stated that they would not be liable for any losses or damage however caused. However these terms can be considered void as dodgy developers received them after the initial contract was made. In the text it says as a result of the conversation i.e. the initial making of the contract, office suppliers sent out there terms. It is the case that any term not those just purporting to exclude or limit liability is considered invalid if has not been incorporated into the contract. And because the terms were sent out after the contract was formed they cannot be consider to be incorporated into the contract. As a general rule, an exemption clauses only
Formation of a contract
FORMATION OF A CONTRACT INTRODUCTION A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more parties that is intended to be legally binding. The first requisite of any contract is an agreement (consisting of an offer and acceptance). At least two parties are required; one of them, the offeror, makes an offer which the other, the offeree, accepts. OFFER An offer is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as it is accepted by the offeree. A genuine offer is different from what is known as an "invitation to treat", ie where a party is merely inviting offers, which he is then free to accept or reject. The following are examples of invitations to treat: . AUCTIONS In an auction, the auctioneer's call for bids is an invitation to treat, a request for offers. The bids made by persons at the auction are offers, which the auctioneer can accept or reject as he chooses. Similarly, the bidder may retract his bid before it is accepted. See: Payne v Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep 148 2. DISPLAY OF GOODS The display of goods with a price ticket attached in a shop window or on a supermarket shelf is not an offer to sell but an invitation for customers to make an offer to buy. See: Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731 P.S.G.B. v Boots Chemists [1953] 1 All ER 482. 3. ADVERTISEMENTS Advertisements of goods for
Outline the basic rule of the law of contract regarding the effective revocation of an offer.
Outline the basic rule of the law of contract regarding the effective revocation of an offer. [750 words max] In the Law of Contract, there have been five fundamental performances by which an offer can be terminated. Firstly, an offer can be withdrawn. Thus, an offer can be withdrawn by the offeror at anytime before acceptance has taken place. To withdraw an offer, the offeror must bring notice of the withdrawal to the attention of the offeree. This is the general rule for revocation. But, there is however no actual requirement that the offeror himself must be the one to put forward his withdrawal to the attention of the offeree. In Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463, the defendant offered to sell a house to the plaintiff for £800. The offer being left open until Friday. On Thursday the defendant sold the house to a third party. The plaintiff was informed of the situation by someone else. Nevertheless the plaintiff on Friday, decided to send the defendant a letter of acceptance. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. The court held no contract had been made between the two parties, because the offer had been withdrawn before it was accepted. Hence the lapse of time for the acceptance to take place (offer was open until Friday) and the revocation which took place on the Thursday before acceptance had taken place and the plaintiff was also informed by the
Generally, silence of the offeree does not constitute an acceptance of the offer. The reason for this is because acceptance requires that the offeree must express, either by words or by conduct
Generally, silence of the offeree does not constitute an acceptance of the offer. The reason for this is because acceptance requires that the offeree must express, either by words or by conduct, the assent to the terms of the offer in the way indicated by the offeror. One of the requirements of a valid acceptance is that it has to be communicated to the offeror. Failure to communicate, being silence or inactive, will not constitute an acceptance of the offer and therefore no valid contract is made. . There is, however, not an absolute rule that silence can never amount to an acceptance. This means that there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the offeror has waived communication by indicating that acceptance may be formed by silence or inaction, then under this situation, the acceptance must be characterized by the presence of the intention of the offeree to bind himself to a contractual obligation. Then, the offeree must communicate his intention to the offeror in order for there to be a valid contract. The idea of communication of the acceptance has been applied very literally so that there is a supposed rule that silence cannot amount to an acceptance. This rule, however, must be treated with some caution. The case which established the proposition that silence cannot amount to an acceptance is Felthouse v Bindley.1 In this case an uncle offered to
Contract Case Study
LAW CASE STUDY -Adnan Iqbal For a legally binding contract we need an offer and acceptance. An offer is an expression of willingness to be bound by the terms of offer once it is accepted. The offer may be made in writing, by words, by conduct or by a mixture of all three. It can be made to one person, a group of people or to the world at large as in Carlill-v-Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. the facts were that the defendants advertised that they would pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after having purchased and used one as directed and claimed the reward. The defendants urged, inter alia, that it was impossible to contract with the whole world. The curt held that the advertisement constituted an offer to the world at large, accepted by the plaintiff, who was entitled to the £100. An acceptance is a 'mirror image' of the offer, with no variation of the terms of the offer. An acceptance must be communicated (Felthouse-v-Bindley) and can be in any form e.g. writing, words or conduct or a mixture of all three. On 20th June Edward offered by telephone to sell his car to Fred for £5,000 and said he would send a messenger for Fred's reply on 27th. Here we can see that an offer has been made with clear terms. However we need to look at the mode of an acceptance, Edward had said that he would send a messenger, but is the messenger mandatory. If we look at Eliason-v-Henshaw, it
health and safety legislation and regulation
`Bodgeit & legit` engineering co have a pillar drill in a manufacturing workshop that employees have to use in order to carry out their job. It is not bolted to the floor, the chuck safety guard is broken and there are no signs or markings in the vicinity of the drill. a. * The drill is not bolted to the floor so if someone when to use the drill it could fall on him or someone else around the drill. * The chuck safety guard is broken so if someone tries to drill a hard material for example a mild steel the swarf can fly out of the machine and can injure someone close to the machine and also the swarf will be very hot because the material is so hard so if the swarf flies in to someone eye it can damage it. * If there is no sign to say which switch is for what than the user will not exactly know where the emergency switch is and they won't know the start button and other setting buttons. If there are no safety warning signs for example wear your goggles or wear mask or any other hazard signs the person who using the machine won't be aware of the danger or may for get to wear a goggle and can get his eye blind. * If there are no markings of personal space the person who is using the machine can have a hard time working on that drill because others can come in to his space and disturb him and they may even come and take his tool without knowing they are do so. Also if
![Contract Law [I] Formative Essay](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/73900/listing/73900_1.jpg)
Contract Law [I] Formative Essay
Contract Law [I] Formative Essay Adam Sinfield Group B2 In order to advise Brian, Charles and Diana the main issues that arise in this problem need to be identified. In order for a contract to exist there must be some form of offer and acceptance, in that order. Firstly, Alan claims that an offer was never really made, and if so it was revoked before acceptance, so did an offer exist? Alan also claims that no one accepted the offer, but Brian, Charles and Diana refuse this, so did acceptance occur? If the answer to both these questions is no, then no contract existed and nothing can be done, however if the answer is yes, then an enforceable contract is in place. If yes, then further problems arise. Who is entitled to the reward? As each walker took different actions and had different motives. An offer is often defined as "An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that a binding contract will exist once the offer is accepted"1 however adverts are usually classified as invitations to treat, rather than as an offer which are not legally binding (see Partridge v Crittenden2), however a problem occurs when an offer is unilateral, that is an offer made from the offeror to anyone, for example that of a reward for a missing pet. The offeror is obliged to pay the reward, but anyone who sees the advert is not obliged to go and look. Some
Common Law, 1st yr problem based assignment
Q: Advise Jacky if he could sue Samantha for breach of contract. Will you answer be different if Jacky had given Samantha HK$5,000 on 2 October 2009? In order to determine whether Jacky could sue Samantha for breach of contract, we have to examine whether there is a valid contract between them. According to Oxford Dictionary of Law1, a contract is a legally binding agreement arises as a result of an offer and a corresponding acceptance. However, consideration (unless the contract is by deed), the intention to create legal relations and the contract is legal have to co-exist for the contract to be legally binding. There are two major concerns in this question: firstly, whether there is a contract formed on 2nd October; secondly, whether there is a contract formed on 5th October. Hereinafter, I will examine the case with the criteria mentioned and analyse the likelihood of having a valid contract between the parties. Firstly, the offer and the acceptance is too vague to be legally binding. Samantha's advertisement is quite vague as it is not specific enough to be qualified as an offer. It is stated in the text, "red toyota, in good condition", but what is the other details like the model and its age? Besides, an advert could not produce a valid offer. As in Partridge v Crittenden2, when ordinary people read an advert, they will assume the product might not be available and
![Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was referring to cohabitees.](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/122943/listing/122943_1.jpg)
Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was referring to cohabitees.
Question 1/a The fact that Ann and Derek are only partners as opposed to being married is irrelevant as far as undue influence is concerned. In Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was referring to cohabitees and obviously this is the case as Ann and Derek have lived together for three years. First Ann will try to establish actual undue influence under Class 1. The burden of proof is on Ann to prove affirmatively that Derek exerted influence which goes beyond what is regarded as acceptable on her, to enter into this particular transaction (Williams v Bailey (1866)). It is always difficult to establish actual undue influence and based on the facts of the case, there is nothing to suggest that there was overbearing or improper pressure exerted on Ann, except mentioning his children seems unlikely to amount to 'emotional pressure' (as opposed to BCCI v. Aboody [1989]). However, if actual undue influence is difficult to establish, Ann will try to prove presumed undue influence under Class 2. Firstly Ann only has to show that there was a relationship of trust and confidence between her and Derek of such a nature that it is fair to presume that Derek abused that relationship in persuading Ann to enter
The legal meaning of 'consideration'.
"The courts have insisted that no contract (other than a contract under seal) can be enforceable in the absence of consideration." Shears & Stephenson [1996] Under English law, for a simple contract to be valid, there must be 'consideration' from the party accepting the offer. The traditional definition comes from the case of Currie v Misa [1875] where Luch LJ states: 'A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given suffered or undertaken by the other.' The legal meaning of 'consideration' is not very different from the everyday use of term. For example, if it was said, "For a small consideration I will..." it is probably an offering to do something for money. However, the consideration need not be monetary. It need not even be a benefit, i.e. if my next-door neighbours offer me money to desist from playing the saxophone in the evenings, the consideration is my desisting, it is not the offer of money, as Sir Fredrick Pollock states: 'An act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable1.' For the consideration to be valid it must have the following features: > Consideration must 'move from' the offeree to
