Methods of Offer and Acceptance-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: You are required to advise Peter as to whether or not he is contractually bound to Emma or Andy. Identify all the issues. Answer: Assessment: Issue: Considering the details of the case study, the main issue that has been cropped up in this case is to determine the fact whether any valid contract has been made in between Emma and Peter or not. Rules: In Ireland, both common law and statutory law govern Contract law. In general, contract is an agreement bound by law. Four essential elements make a contract valid of which offer and acceptance plays an essential role (Stone and Devenney 2017). All the essentials of the contract are universal in nature and they should be applied in all countries. Therefore, in the contents of Ireland, a contract must comply with all the essentials. The doctrine of offer and acceptance is based on the principle of meeting the minds. In offer, the offer maker creates an offer regarding something that he wants to sell in lieu of certain considerations. According to Treitel, the offer maker wants to be bound on the terms of the offer (Hough and Kuhnel-Fitchen 2014). However, the expression of offer can be of different types like letter, advertisement or other methods. However, when the offeree will accept the terms of the offer and communicate with the offferor, it will be stated that the offer has been accepted and contract has been made. In case of Smith v Hughes, the court has emphasized the reasonable value of the parties regarding the contractual terms. However, the offer must be definite and complete. Therefore, the principle of invitation to treat is not come under the purview of legal offer. It has been observed by the court in case of Harvey v Facey [1893] A.C. 552 that if the offer maker has not decided to sell something yet and just make certain wishes regarding the same, it will be considered as invitation to treat and not offer. In Hillas and Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932]UKHL 2, it has been observed by the court that if the terms of the court has not been clearly mentioned by the parties, it will not be considered as valid offer. However, in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394, it has been held by the court that mere advertisement does not come under the definition of offer. However, if all the details of the product has been mentioned in the advertisement, it can be treated as an offer to sale (Keating v Horwood 1926 135 L.T. 29). After an offer has been made successfully, the process of acceptance comes into the light. If the person to whom the offer has been made accepts all the terms and conditions of the offer maker, it will be treated as valid acceptance, though there are certain rules regarding the acceptance too. According to the general principle, an offer can be validly accepted only when it is directly communicated with the offer maker. This principle has been established in the case of Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC J35 where the court observed that mere acceptance could not be treated as a valid form of acceptance. However, there are certain exceptions to this common rule of direct communication. In certain circumstances, it can be observed that the parties are residing in different places and direct communication is not possible. According to the law of contract, an offer can be accepted by the parties through internet, telephone or by applying the postal rule. In Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B Ald 681, the court has rightly been observed that postal rule of acceptance is a valid rule of acceptance and an offer should be treated as accepted as soon as the person post the letter of acceptance. It has been mentioned that the letter should not come into the knowledge of the offer maker. The offer will be accepted when the letter has been posted. This rule is termed as the postal rule. However, there are certain limitations in case of postal rule such as it does not apply in case of email and fax. In Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl mbH [1983] 2 AC 34 (HL), it has been decided that by the court that in case of email or fax, the offer will be considered as accepted if the message has entered in the mailbox of the offer maker. It has also been mentioned by the court that if any acceptance has been made through fax, the same should be made within the official hour and not after that. The person who has accepted the offer can make a counter offer to the original offer maker and in this case, the value of the previous offer becomes dead. In Swan v Miller [1919]1 IR 15, it has been observed by the court that if an offer has been ended by counter offer, no parties can take the plea of valid contract on the basis of previous offer. Application: In this case, it has been observed that Peter has decided to sell his car and made an advertisement in the newspaper regarding the car and mentioned the condition and price of the car. In the mean time, Emma has read the advertisement, approached to Peter, and claimed to buy the car in a new price. Two issues are there to decide. First, whether the advertisement is an offer or not and secondly, whether there is a valid counter offer made or not. According to the case of Fisher v Bell, it can be stated that the nature of the advertisement is invitation to treat and not an offer. Further, when the new price claimed by Emma, the old price of the car offered by Peter has been revoked automatically and a new offer has been created by the counter offer. It has further been observed that when Peter has accepted the claimed price of the car, Emma did not deny it. She talked to her husband and tried to reach Peter through making calls on his number and even left a message in the answering machine but in vain to reach to him positively. She has made the message at 7.30 pm and the validity of the message was continued till next day at 9 am. According to the case of Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl mbH, it can be stated that the message should reach at the message box of the offer maker. It is not required that the message should have to come into the knowledge of the offer maker. Therefore, it can be stated that Emma has accepted the offer as soon as her message has reached at the message box of Peter. Further it can be stated that the problem in between Peter and Emma is based on the principle of offer and acceptance. Here, it has been observed that Peter has accepted the counter offer made by Emma and the acceptance of Emma has successfully re ached at the message box of Peter. Hence, it can be stated that valid contract has been made in between Peter and Emma. Twist has been occurred when Peter has sold the car to another car dealer in a new price by breaching the contract that has been made with Emma earlier to that. Therefore, Emma can claim for compensation as Peter has breached the contract. Conclusion: Valid contract has been made in between Emma and Peter before the car has been sold to Andy, the car dealer. The contract is based on the counter offer and not on the previous offer made by Peter through advertisement References: Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B Ald 681 Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl mbH [1983] 2 AC 34 (HL) Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC J35 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394 Harvey v Facey [1893] A.C. 552 Hillas and Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932]UKHL 2 Hough, T. and Kuhnel-Fitchen, K., 2014. Offer and Acceptance. InOptimize Contract Law(pp. 23-50). Routledge. Keating v Horwood 1926 135 L.T. 29 Stone, R. and Devenney, J., 2017.The modern law of contract. Routledge. Swan v Miller [1919]1 IR 1