Contract Acceptance and Offer

Q1. Understanding the concept of slue is the of the essence(predicate) thing in answering this question. A contract may be defined as an agreement between twain or more graphemeies that is intended to be leg altogethery binding. This answer go out suck up the main organises to see the differences between an assert and an invitation to treasure. An offer may be defined as a statement of willingness to contract on undertake terms made with the intention that, if veritable there will line up a binding contract. On the a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) side, invitation to treat invites the other people to make an offer which can be accepted or rejected by the other troupe.To illustrate them we have to look in certain areas. First area is the display of goods where these are seen as an invitation to treat beca economic consumption shops are inviting people to make them an offer which can be accepted or rejected by the shopkeeper. Cases to moderates this are Fisher v buzz er and Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Chemists. Another area in which the gross revenue of goods are treated as an invitation to treat is advertisement as seen in Partridge v Crittenden. However we have an exception. Case to support this is Carlill v Carbolic where a reward was attached to the advert.This suit is treated as an offer because it can be accepted without any future negotiations. Another show quality where the term of offer is not good valuated we can find in sales of land area. Case to support this is Harvey v Facey where the judicature persistent that between them was not a contract just a admiration regarding to the answer to enquiries, so was not an offer and not an invitation to treat. The finish dickens areas where the court may presume that certain acts are invitation to treat is invitation to bare-ass and auction sales.Cases which support the fact that invitation to tender is an invitation to treat are Spencer v Harding and Harvela Investments v Royal Tr ust. First slipperiness is illustrating that even you use the phrase offering in the context it doesnt mean that is an offer. Second case highlights that the highest tender is going to be accepted . In the auction cases support by Payne v Cave we can see that we can withdrew the highest call forth before the bridal of the auctioneer because at that point is no contract. Q2. match to contract law an credenza is a final and unqualified word sense of the terms of an offer.The concept of acceptance can be see in more counsels so weve got well-nigh rules. One of the rules highlights the fact that the acceptance has to match the offer. The person for who was addressed the offer has to accept all the terms of the offer. They cant introduce new terms because this will be seen as a comeback offer. Case to support this is Percy v Archital. A require for information about an offer it cant be taken in friendliness as a counter offer. Case to support this is Stevenson v McLean where the defendant by answering to some enquires was not doing a counter offer.Another important rule is when we have two parties with different measuring terms. Case to support this is Butler Machine v Excell-o-Corp where is illustrated the fact that when an offer is made on a document with standard terms and the acceptance is coming on a document with another terms and we static delivery the item, means that we accept the second party terms. An acceptance is taking to devotion only if is communicated. Case to support this is Felthouse v Bindley where the claimant considered the silence of his nephew as an acceptance.To accept an offer we can follow the methods of acceptance when instantaneous methods of communication are used. In this case the contract takes place when and where the acceptance is begetd as seen in Entores v Miles Far case. If this is received out of normal office hours then acceptance will be sensible from the start of the next working day. Case to support this is Brinkibon v Stahag. The only exception of the rule that acceptance must be communicated is the postal rule. This takes place only when is requested or when is an appropriate and reasonable way of communication between the parties.In this case the acceptance takes place when the letter of acceptance was posted not when was received as seen in Adam v Lindsell case. In case that the letter was sent but it has never arrived is still a valid acceptance. Case to support this is Household Insurance v Grant. Although is an exception of the rule, postal rule will not apply when the letter of acceptance was handed to intermediaries (London and Northern Bank), when the letter is not properly addressed, when the offerer specified that the acceptance must reach to him (Holwell Securities v Hughes) and when is unreasonable to use the post.Q3. Consideration is important element in the formation of a contract. It is unremarkably described as being something which represents a benefit for the person who is qualification a announce or a detriment for the person to whom the assure is made or both . Case to support this is Currie v Misa. colligate to the attachment are certain rules which we have to follow. First rule is that consideration must not be past as seen in Re McArdle case where the court supports the representative of the owner because the occupiers didnt provide a good consideration.However we have some exception, case of Lampleigh v Braithwaite where the court unyielding that it can be a past consideration because the promise of defrayment came after the performance, so consideration was precede by a request which result a valid consideration. Another rule of the consideration is that it must move from the promise. This is seen in Tweddle v Atkinson case where the court decide that three parties cant provide the consideration, hence is not having any rights from the agreement.An exception to this rule is Contract(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1990 which allows the third party to sue in case that the name it can be identified in the authorized contract. Case called Thomas v Thomas is one of the cases who is coming to support the rule where the consideration needs to be commensurate but not necessarily economically adequate . Court decided that in this case the rent of one pound which the widow was paying it was a sufficient consideration which is enough to form a contract.The following rule, performance of an existent public duty is not consideration, is seen in Collins v Godefroy case and wants to highlight the fact that if the people have a duty obligate by law to turn up, they have to do it without any promise of remuneration from the client because this is not consideration. However, weve got an exception Glasbrook v Glamorgan case where the statutory duty of the police was not sufficient consideration they had gone beyond their existing duty. Performance of an existing contractual duty is not consideration it can be seen fro m different points of view.In the first case, Stilk v Myrick the fact that 2 mean deserted is not a good consideration in order to change the contract. However the case called Hartley v Ponsonby is different because 19 people deserted, which is more than half of the total sailors, hence a valid consideration, so the offer of Ponsonby and the acceptance of the crew can be considered a new contract. The next case, Williams v Roffey Brothers is coming with a different point of view because the benefit of not paying the penalty is seen as a consideration.The following case which I will present is about part payment of a debt. Case to support this is Pinnel v Cole where court decided that the payment of a small amount of money from the hale is not a satisfaction for the money lender, therefore the agreement to receive some money at the due date was not a contract because was no consideration. However weve got the case of Hirachand v Temple as an exception because the existing duty to ma ke a payment was have by a third party, hence was a good consideration.The last part is about the equitable rule of promissory estoppel which allows a contract to be enforced even through there is no consideration as seen in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway case where the dwell was following what he promise but the landlord was enforcing his rights. This case was revised subsequently in London Property v High Trees. Based on the facts that there is a promise that existing legal rights will not be enforced, there is an existing contract and the injured party relied on that promise, Lord Denning stated that the Landlord was estopped from going back on his promise.