This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Published: Fri, 02 Feb 2018
Legal relationship and consideration
To advise cara on her legal position it would be necessary to establish whether she has a binding contract with Fab Fizuque studio. A viable contract would include: Offer and acceptance, Intention to create legal relationship and Consideration.
The advertisement by fab fizue is known as an offer to treat. Similar to the Fisher v bell case where an item was displayed in a shop is seen an an invite to the other party to make an offer on the goods which the shop has an opportunity to accept. This differs from an offer where a specific agreement is made and accepted by both sides who intend to be bound straight away
As a commericil greement the company intention could be seen as implie by conduct, the court view of whether this would constitute whether a contract would be based on the the obejective test. Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) n this case, while there was no written acceptance to the offer, the conduct of the respondent was such that the court drew the conclusion that is accepted the offer. Quoting an old English decision, the court said:
“If, whatever a man’s intention may be he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was consenting to the terms proposed by the other party and that other party upon that belief enters into a contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms.”
An offer is made when fab fizue had sent cara an application form and a request for £100 (consideration). Here we can see intention to create legal realtions (intentions to be bound) this is seen in the offer of a memebership to the club) strorer v Manchester city council , consiration the promise of menmbership from fab fizue to cara a detrimentto the company a benefit to cara ,the money paid by cara a detriment to cara a benefit to the company. Currie v misa
Offer and acceptance.
Specific terms as a price is quoted
Intention to crete legl reltions as terms stated, commercial unilateral agreement
suffice once the promise has sent off the application foerm and £100.
Communication of the offer is requested by fab fizque studio. As a unilateral contract they have specified that cara takes a specific performance to communicate that she accepts the offer(returning the enclosed application form with a fee for £100). Carliol v carbolic soap ball company.
Cara acceptance starts as soon as she post the application form with her enclosed fee.as fab fizue has accepted the post as the main mode of communication they have to accept that as soon as cara post her letter this is deemed as acceptance. Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
On the 5th January fab fiqiuze made an offer to Cara. The offer consistued of intention to be bound on specific terms, to pay £100 to become a member of the club and to send in an application form stating her personal details to create a membership.therefore certain condtions to be bound It should be remembered here that if this was to be brought to court a judge would assess the case using the objesctive test. Hence this contract would be binded once cara had posted the letter. Case. Fab fizuie has stated to cara that they need to receive her application together with the £100 presumed that they are bound by the postal rule., hence the postal rule staes postal acceptance is accepted once posted. Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant 1879.
Consideration was given in the form of the £100 pased from cara to fab frizue and fab fizue promise to accept her membership once she had posted her acceptance. Hence consideration is not absoloute noted by tretel. As consideration does not have to beadequate but sufficient. The law on consideration does not deiced onthe value of the consideration but whether that consideration is suffient
Cara acception received
Fab fizue offer was received by fab on 5 jan there are 2 concumdrums here. If fab fizue received Cara’ application form before they sent their letter of recvocation on the 5th January, Cara’s postal acceptance is complte on posting, Adams v Lindsell (1818).
If fab fizuie sent their letter before cara posted hers then they can revoke their offer and cancel cara membership.
Cara has given consideration in the form of the £100. Fab fizuqie have given their promise of the offer as their consideration. Consideration can be seen as an benefit and detriment, the £100 a benefit to fab fizuqe studios, where £100 is a detriment to cara and the membership a benfitcurrie v musa. Treital comments that in concern of consdirationthere does not have to be a detriment as long as one can show a detriment.
An offer can be recovated beor it is accepted. To withdraw an offer once accepted no effect until it is communicated to the person to whom the offer has been sent. On October 1, an offer to sell was mailed. It was received on October 11 and was accepted by telegram sent on October 11, confirmed by letter mailed October 15. But on October 8, a letter was sent by the offeror revoking the offer (the offeror received the letter of acceptance on October 20).
The court decided that the revocation was inoperative; that the postal rule was “inapplicable to the case of the withdrawal of an offer.
The court said that “an offer can be withdrawn before it is accepted and it is immaterial whether the offer is expressed to be open for acceptance for a given time or not.”
But a withdrawal has no effect until it is communicated to the person to whom the offer has been sent.
“A state of mind not notified cannot be regarded in dealings between man and man; and that an uncommunicated revocation is for all practical purposes and in point of law no revocation at all.”
Carmichael v. Bank of Montreal (1972An offer was to expire at 6 pm. By the given time, in spite of best efforts, the real-estate agent (Mr. Tilley) could not locate the bank manager but managed to leave a telephone message, just before 6 pm, that the offer had been accepted.
But the court held that the offer had been properly accepted because “acceptance was conveyed to defendant through its agent Tilley. The verbal communication of the acceptance of the counter-offer to a responsible person in charge at the defendant’s bank was, in my opinion, sufficient acceptance of the offer.”
Once an offeree has embarked on performance it is too late for the offero to canel their offer.
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: