Student use staff use
Yüklə 21,6 Kb.
|
Word count: In a stated assignment, the case of Harper and Jackson are given. In this case, Jackson was looking to buy Harper’s car. On Monday, Harper said that he decided to sell his car for £2000 and Jackson was interested in this offer, however, he wanted to think about it. After this, Harper said that if he does not tell that he does not want to buy until Saturday, he will assume that he wants to buy his car. On Friday, Jackson meets Green, who tells him that Harper wants to sell his car for £2,250 to Smith. After this conversation, he rushed to write a letter saying that he accepted his offer to buy his car for £2000. Later, however, he changes his mind and calls Harper saying that to ignore his offer. Harper said that he canceled his deal with Smith and is still keen to sell it to Jackson. First, the meaning of a contract is a legally binding agreement that establishes and clarifies the rights of both parties is called a contract. Contracts can be made verbally, in writing, or by shaking hands. Whether or not the individual was aware of the offer, the contract is nevertheless deemed legitimate if all requirements are met.1 Looking at the case, we can say that there was no contract. There was an offer from Harper’s side claiming that he could sell his car to Jackson for £2000, however, Jackson said he would think about this offer before accepting it. To make a legal contract we need all five elements, which are: offer, acceptance, intention, capacity, and consideration. In our case, we can notice that Jackson did not accept his offer, so there was no contract between them. Concerning the offer that was made in this case we can see that it was acceptance of the offer by silence meaning that Jackson was thinking about it, but he went silent. Silence cannot amount to acceptance and an obligation cannot be imposed by another. As proof of this, we can use the case of Felthouse and Bindley2 which is focused on the acceptance by silence issue. In that case, Felthouse and his nephew negotiated about selling a horse, Felthouse offered to buy his horse, but he offered less than his nephew desired, so he went silent meaning that there was no acceptance and John Felthouse did not reply and the horse was later sold with other stock, fetching more than the uncle had offered. In the decision that was held, there was no contract for the horse between the complainant and his nephew. The fact that it is just an offer by Harper he cannot force Jackson to buy his car, instead he can wait for more information from him or sell it to another person because, from Jackson’s side, there were not any considerations. The second issue in this case was with communication of acceptance. Harper’s offer is just a promise, and he can sell whoever he is willing to sell. Jackson after finding out that Harper was selling the car to Smith, immediately wrote a letter that he wanted to buy his car. The statement can be simplified with the case Dickinson and Dodds,3 where the Plaintiff received a written offer from the defendant to sell a certain piece of property, with the condition that it be "left over until Friday 9 o'clock am." At 7 p.m. on Thursday, the plaintiff left Dodd's mother-in-law's residence after discovering that the defendant had been attempting to sell the property to someone else. On Friday morning, the plaintiff tried to personally deliver the acceptance to the defendant, but he declined, saying he had already sold the property. It was the offer to be held open until Friday 9 o’clock was only an offer that was not supported by consideration or acceptance by Plaintiff. There was no binding agreement to keep the property unsold until 9 a.m. Friday. The plaintiff thought he could approve until Friday morning at nine o'clock. He brought his acceptance to the residence where the defendant was known to be staying as soon as he heard that the defendant was in negotiations with another party, and he left the written acceptance with his mother-in-law. On Thursday of the previous week, the defendant had sold Allen the property. The defendant located him at the train station on Friday morning before nine in the morning and gave him a copy of the acceptance. There is a Synopsis of Rule of Law which states that promises to keep an offer open until a certain time will be only a promise unless made by binding by consideration and acceptance necessary to form a binding agreement. The issue here is whether the promise to keep an offer of “I will assume that you want it unless you tell me otherwise by Saturday” was a legally enforceable agreement without compensation and its complete acceptance by Jackson. The offer to be held open until Saturday was the only offer that was not supported by any consideration. Consideration must be sufficient but no need to be adequate. The value of consideration must be something tangible or discernible to be a value of the law.4 For our case about buying a car, Jackson could pay even one dollar, it would have supported the agreement to keep the property unsold until Saturday as an agreement separate from the offer to sell. Without that, it was a mere promise that Harper was free to break. After analyzing the case there is a third issue withdrawal of an offer, Jackson wrote a letter he wanted to buy his car, but it depends on a way if Harper did not even receive the letter about Jackson’s acceptance and he could sell it to Smith, however, day after he changed his mind about buying Harper’s car by calling him. There is a Synopsis of Rule of Law which states that this is the landmark case from which the mailbox rule is derived. The mailbox rule stands for the proposition that an offer is accepted upon mailing of the offer. We can clearly understand this case by looking through Adam and Lindsell5. Defendants on September 2, 1817, mailed their offer to sell. Due to a misdirected letter, the defendants did not receive it until Friday, the fifth, at 7:00 p.m. Plaintiffs agreed to the Defendant's offer that evening and promptly returned it via mail. The defendant received it on the ninth, but they had anticipated receiving it on the seventh, and in the interim, they had offered and sold their wool to someone else. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover the losses they incurred from not getting the fleeces. When Jackson sent a mail saying that he accepted Harper’s offer it was valid from the time he sent not when it was received. So, even though Harper received his letter on that day he could easily sell his car to another because to make an actual contract there should be consideration. In this case, there are no considerations Harper cannot make him buy it and Jackson gives his rejection on Saturday which means it is over. Harper can sell it to another person and in the future if Jackson again wants to buy it Harper should first make an actual contract to avoid this kind of situation. In general, between Harper and Jackson was not a legal contract, which required consideration and Harper just assumed that Jackson would buy it unless he told otherwise until Saturday. Assuming it means promise and the offer will be open until a certain time unless made by binding by consideration and acceptance necessary to form a binding agreement. So, Harper freely can sell it to whoever he is willing to, and Jackson cannot claim that Harper should not sell it. Harper could keep his deal with Simth and there was no obligation to Jackson. Jackson also can buy it from whoever he is willing to, and Harper cannot claim that he needs to buy it from him. References: Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Adams v Lindsell (1817) 106 ER 250 1 Unlocking Contract Law. Chris Turner. file:///C:/Users/Shahodat/Downloads/Telegram%20Desktop/[Chris_Turner]_Unlocking_Contract_Law.pdf 2 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 3 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 4 Unlocking Contract Law. Chris Turner. file:///C:/Users/Shahodat/Downloads/Telegram%20Desktop/[Chris_Turner]_Unlocking_Contract_Law.pdf 5 Adam and Lindsell (1818) Yüklə 21,6 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||