Contract law

An offer can be addressed in any form this may very from being made orally, in writing or by conduct. There is no rule that acceptance must be made by words. This can be illustrated in  Carlill v Carbolic .  Here one can consider two types of agreements, one is bilateral and the other is unilateral. Bilateral it is considered as an executery to ending the contract. This allows the other party to release them from performing a good consideration. It can be seen the following case Powell v Lee. Unilateral would be seen as an invitation to treat, this statement is true to an extent that the person who intends to complie with its terms. However the person does not need to comply in order to make an offer. This is illustrated in R v Clarke, They are just stated to carry out the required task.

In this situation the offer was rejected, hence that Robert gives Tom alternative, by stating that Tom has until Wednesday to buy the car. So therefore this shows that Robert is still interested in selling the car to Tom. When relating this onto acceptance, one does not accept all the terms and conditions that were proposed by the offery (Robert). This would lead onto introducing new terms is not acceptance, but this falls into as a counter offer. That the effect as a counter offer is to “kill off” the original offer so that it cannot subsequently be accepted by the offeree.

It was stated that Robert offers £5000 for the car. It is Robert who is making an offer in the legal sense. The main fact that has to be taking into account whether this offer has been accepted. The (claimant) Tom replied by offering to purchase the car for £4,500. If it is an acceptance, the next question is whether the acceptance has been communicated. Tom had posted a letter of acceptances on Wednesday stating that he would be paying the due amount next month. Here the silence rule can be considered, but it does not relate to this situation in any manner. In this rule it is unable to be amounted to an acceptance. An example is Felthouse v Bindley.  It can be stated that the thought process placed behind this rule is unfair. This is done in order to get rid of an unwanted contractual arrangement.

The postal rule applies communication of acceptance was taken place when the letter of acceptance is posted. The rule was established in the case of Adams v Lindsell .  This rule applies whenever the use of the post is, or when it is deemed to a contemplated by the parties. The presumptions that, it is so contemplated when the offer makes his offer by post. It is illustrated in Menthorn v Fraser. It has been made that the offer on the assumptions is made by post. However the letter was lost in the post, but never the less the postal rule applies the contract is concluded when the letter is posted and the contract cannot be unmade because of causality in the post. This can be seen in the case House Fire  v Grant .

On the above assumption, therefore it is possible to argue that a contract has been concluded for the sale of the car, for £5000. It is at least doubtful as to whether there has been offer and acceptance and if the postal rule applies. The postal rule is not an inflexible one. In Holwell  v Hughes, the subsequent conduct of the parties involving in a fresh offer and acceptance, it would be  submitted to produce inconvenience in applying the postal rule.

The advertisement is usually seen as not an offers, as it is illustrated in  Grainger v Gough.  This principle can be a seen that an advertisement is not an invitation to treat. In addition a counter offer counts as a rejection. This shows that a rejection intends to terminate the offer. This seen in the case Hyde v wrench .

However if an offer requires acceptance within a specified time it will lapse if it has not been accepted within that time. When Robert heard nothing from Tom he had assumed that Tom was not interested, so he agreed to sell his car to Suntia. Lastly we are able to consider the mirror image rule. This rule does apply largely to the situation that we are given. In terms of acceptance this rule that the other person should accept.

 I have overall concluded the formation of the contract had to be taken place to what the original plan was. So therefore there is no satisfactory remedy, in order for any specific performance would be available to him. Tom is also not able to sue Robert for the breach of contract. The courts will not make an order where compliances with this sort are impossible, as the case of Castlle v Wilieinson It is submitted that this is more flexible approach is preferable and in the present situation for Tom to withdrawal of the acceptance is effective. Overall consequently no contract has been concluded between Tom and Robert.

Word count: 1,218

Table of cases.

• Adams v Lindsell, (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 24.

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1892] 2QB 484.

• Castle v Wilieinson (1878).

• Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869.

• Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] AC 325.

• House Fire And Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216.

• Holwell Securities Ltd. V Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155; [1974] 1 All ER 161.

• Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334.

• Harvela Investments Ltd. V Royal Trust Co. of Canada (CI) Ltd. [1986] AC 207; [1985] 3 WLR 276.

• Menthorn v Fraser 1892.

• Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284

• Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421; [1968] 1 WLR 1204.

• R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227.

Bibliography.

Mckendrick.E, Contract Law ( 4th  Edition), Macmillan Press Ltd, London 2000.

Smith.J.C,Contract ( 11th Edition),Sweet & Maxwell,London 2000.

Richards .P, Law Of Contract (6th Edition) Pearson Longman, 2004.

Martin. J, & Turner.C, contract Law (Series Editors), Hodder & Stoughton, 2004.

Taylor, R.D, Law Of Contract, (5th Editors) Blackstone Press Limited.