An Intention To Create Legal Relations

Did Rebecca and Simon intend to suggest binding contract enforcement with Humphrey finish the work?

What is the law relevant to the issue?

In this case, the law says, there is a presumption; the two sides reach a deal, going to his contract. On this count, they are going to this agreement (quotation Rebecca and Simon accept) is a compulsory execution obligations. This obviously proof is the commercial properties. (Case authority: (Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1927)

Legal presumed one agreement without your family or friends, the two sides did not intend to establish a binding to enforce the contract. No evidence, namely the presumption to refute without going to enforce this agreement? If the relationship is based on enterprise or business, and on the basis of the clear intention may be negative. One of the commercial influences in agreement evidence.(Case authority: (Simpkins v Pays, 1972)

Apply the relevant law to the facts in the problem

Sufficient evidence to overthrow, namely presumption of parties don't intend to they agree to can become effective. The two parties, Anderson and Humphrey negotiation is in business environment. Humphrey used Emil sent quote, so he decided to create Anderson 'legal relationship. Although the two sides did not sign the agreement, party intent is to cases of evidence, that's what they offer and acceptance.

4. Conclusion

In these business situations, presumably not applicable; Humphrey issued the offer, and at the same time Rebecca and Simon accepted it, so they in order to create a binding to enforce the contract, complete the agreement.

Part 2: Offer and acceptance

What is the legal issue?

Has a contract been formed between Anderson and Rebecca and Premier Renovation during the course of these negotiations?

What is the law relevant to the issue?

1 September

This is an invitation, because it is the company provides price competition, this is their craft is the professional work. The premier of the state council shall be the advertisement, thinks to decorate Simon is the company issued a Simon booklet. If is to provide, it could very well be accepted. (Gerbic & Lawrence, 2006)

3 September

Because this is not a questioned or requests for information is not acceptable. Simon and Rebecca just called frank to have a discussed and asking for more details about the job.

Case authority: (Gerbic & Lawrence, 2006)

14 September

This is a proposal. These terms is clear and concrete work, including the cost of the statement shows 205,000 labor, materials; Taxes and work will be held on October 1, with Simon entered into a contract with Rebecca, if they accept. In this case, they spent two hours to discuss all of these details, which mean technology innovation all terms communication. (Fitch v Snedaker 1868)

15-20 September

Anderson to ask for a quote the other construction companies, other companies offer higher than $ 200,000, or do not promise the quality of work. The proposition that information given in response to a query is not an offer. (Harvey V Fancey)

21 September

Simon are willing to accept the offer 205 000 dollars, but in fact, he refused the first and second disk. This means that Simon make the third set. Meanwhile frank also refused to new proposal, because he have taken another contract. Canceled the first offer the recommendation. Now is to frank refused to accept the offer made.(Hyde V Wrench)

29 September

Frank calls Anderson and decided to accept 205 000 dollars offer, but no legal consequences. However, simply decided to accept but not take positive action is not equal to accept. (Felthouse v Bindley)

4. Conclusion

Although this case has laws provide from one party to another party, ultimately no contract that has been formed between Rebecca and Simon Anderson and prime minister Renovation.

Part 3: Consent

What is the legal issue?

Could Rebecca and Simon successfully claim against to Regency Revitalisations Ltd?

What is the law relevant to the issue?

Morris said he personally been in building industry 45 years, and no one revitalisations regent dissatisfied customers. By the investigation, Anderson j in only three months that company established before. However, this statement is true, then a distorted as the current state, many glowing testimonials is on previous state in a statement he's construction work. These obviously are all about the present and the past fact false statements. (Case authority: Ware v Johnson) from this lecture, puffs mean a statement is made grandiloquent, so nobody will believe it. However, it is not a puff in this condition.

Managing Director of the revitalization of Regent Morris Brown Limited is a party to the contract, because he is an agent in the construction company. Anderson is another party. Is there really such a statement is by one party (Morris) to another party's contract, there is no third person. However, if you made ​​a false one, the other party cannot sue on this basis.

Conclusion:



Request the removal of this law essay