Business Law Contract Free-Sample for Students-Myassignmenthelp

Questions: 1.Whether a contract was formed between Peter and Pravani, or Not?2.Whether a Valid Contract was formed between Alonso and Chris, or Not? Answers: 1.Rule A contract can be stated as an exchange of promise, which is made amongst two or a higher number of parties, for carrying out a decided obligation, for a certain specified consideration. Generally, to form a contract, there are two modes. The first one is the one in which the terms of the contract are spoken out and it forms a verbal contract. The second method is to out down the terms of the contract on a paper, which is then signed by all the parties, and it becomes a written contract. There are certain crucial elements which are needed to form any contract, and these include agreement, i.e., offer and acceptance, the intent to be bound in a lawful manner, and consideration. The initiating point of any contract is the offer. In Placer Developments Ltd v Cth (1969) 121 CLR 353, it was held that the offer has to be promissory and cannot be generalized (Jade 2017). There is a need to differentiate an offer from an invitation to treat. An invitation represents that the party is willing to start negotiating on a particular deal; whereas, an offer shows that the parties are willing to start legal relations. The advertisements in magazines or newspapers, or the goods which are kept on the shelf of a shop are all considered as an invitation to treat and it would never be considered as an offer. And in the case of invitation to treat, the individual is not required to complete the sale, as was held in Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 (E-Law Resources 2017). In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6, the displayed goods were held to be an invitation. And the contract was held to be completed only when the offer was accepted or rejected at the cash desk by the pharmacist (Swarb 2016). However, if the same contains a unilateral offer, it is deemed as an offer, as was established in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256. In this case, an offer was made by the company to award the individual who would contract influenza, even when the individual used the smoking ball. The reason behind this is that the unilateral offer can be accepted by anyone from general public (Gibson and Fraser 2014, 346). Once an offer is made, it has to be accepted at the same terms as it was made, and while the offer still exists. The acceptance can only be given by the individual to whom the offer was made. The instantaneous communication rule provides that the acceptance has to be communicated. The postal rules of acceptance are an exception to this. In Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27, it was held that the acceptance is taken the moment the letter is posted (Macdonald and Atkins 2014, 25). However, on the communication sent through phone or telex, the instantaneous communication rules apply. In Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34, it was held that the contract would be created when the communication sent by the sender was received and is also established in the jurisdiction in which it is received (Swarb 2017a). The principle given in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3 was accepted in this case. In the quoted case, it was held that the acceptance is attained only when telex is received (British and Irish Legal Information Institute 2017). 2.Rule Apart from the element of agreement, there are two other elements which have to be at hand in order to form a contract and these are the elements of consideration and intention. The consideration is also the remuneration for keeping the promise. It can be anything which is mutually decided between the parties, however, the same needs to have an economic value. The case of Price v Easton (1833) 4 B Ad 433 imposes a duty on the individual who has enjoyed the services promised in the contract, to pay the decided consideration, or can be held liable for a breach (Parris 2016, 98). In the case of Thomas v Thomas (1842) QB 851, the court held that consideration can be a promise to do or give something, or it can be money. Though, it cannot be a promise to not give or do something. Moreover, the judges also held that the consideration had to be sufficient, even though the same may not be adequate (Swarb 2015a). Another point regarding consideration is that it has to be made when the promise is being conducted or after the same has been conducted. Consideration cannot come before the promise is made. In short, past consideration is not deemed as sufficient and this was established in the case of Stylk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317; 170 ER 1168 (Swarb 2015b). Another element is the intention of the parties to form legal relationship. In the case of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1975] UKHL, it was found that there was presence of intention to form lawful relationship. This was because of the fact that the coins were offered to the purchasers of four gallons of petrol in commercial context, which clarified the presence of intent (Swarb 2017b). In the case of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95, it was held that the relevant facts of the case could only determine if there was presence of intention to be legally bound or not (Australian Contract Law 2017). Application In the given scenario, the goods displayed on the shop are an invitation to treat as per Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. And due to the applicability of Partridge v Crittenden, Pravani is not obliged to sale the same. Further in this case, there was no unilateral offer in form of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. And the offer was also clear for the item and was not generalized, as was held in Placer Developments Ltd v Cth. This is evident from the fact that Peter came into the shop and started negotiating for the sale of antique Comb Set. After the negotiations were made, it was decided that the offer stood at $600 for the set. The acceptance mode was deiced as a communication through the telephone. As per Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH, the acceptance would be attained only when the communication was received. A similar provision was held in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation. So, the communication of acceptance was received by Pravani only after she had heard the message. This came after another deal regarding the same product was successfully accomplished, and so the acceptance was rendered useless. In the given case, the offer was made with a consideration $50,000, even though the same was available in the market at a lower price of $35,000. However, Thomas v Thomas dictates that the amount of consideration is irrelevant, as long as it is sufficient. So, the consideration may be inadequate and yet valid. Moreover, there is no aspect of past consideration in this as per Stylk v Myrick. So, as per the element of consideration, a valid contract was established in this case. Regarding the intention to form lawful relations, there was a clear intention on part of both Alonso and Chris. As per Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, the case involved a commercial dealing and so, the intention can be presumed. Further, the facts of the case can clarify the presence of intent as per Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. Chris clearly wanted to form legal relations and this is the reason he offered Alonso to attain his services at particularly stated terms and conditions. These conditions were acceptable to Chris and he wanted to give his acceptance. This is evident from the typed letter and the subsequent attempts at communicating his acceptance. So, Alonso had clear intention of forming legal relations. Chris changed his tone when he got to know that the same services were available by an award winning Web Design Company. This is when he changed his statement and told Alonso that he had no intention of forming legal relations and that the project was real. So, Chris had clear intentions, and would have gone ahead with the contract, had the offer from Web Design Company, with a lower price, not present to him. Conclusion Based on these points, it can be concluded that a lawful or legal contract was not created between Peter and Pravani due to the absence of a crucial element of contract, pertaining to agreement. This is due to the fact that an acceptance was not made by Peter on time. Based on these points, it can be concluded that a contract was formed between Chris and Alonso, due to the presence of valid consideration, along with the intention of creating legal relationship. References Australian Contract Law. 2017. Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95. https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/ermogenous.html British and Irish Legal Information Institute. 2017. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3 (17 May 1955). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1955/3.html E-Law Resources. 2017. Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Partridge-v-Crittenden.php Gibson, Andy, and Douglas Fraser. 2014. Business Law 2014. New South Wales: Pearson. Jade. 2017. Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth. https://jade.io/j/?a=outlineid=66132 Macdonald, Elizabeth and Ruth Atkins. 2014. Koffman Macdonald's Law of Contract. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parris, John. 2016. Commercial Law: Made Simple. London: Elsevier. Swarb. 2015a. Thomas v Thomas; 5 Feb 1842. https://swarb.co.uk/thomas-v-thomas-5-feb-1842/ Swarb. 2015b. Stilk v Myrick: KBD 16 Dec 1809. https://swarb.co.uk/stilk-v-myrick-kbd-16-dec-1809/ Swarb. 2016. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd: CA 5 Feb 1953. https://swarb.co.uk/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd-ca-5-feb-1953/ Swarb. 2017a. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH: HL 1982. https://swarb.co.uk/brinkibon-ltd-v-stahag-stahl-und-stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft-mbh-hl-1982/ Swarb. 2017b. Esso Petroleum Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: HL 10 Dec 1975. https://swarb.co.uk/esso-petroleum-limited-v-commissioners-of-customs-and-excise-hl-10-dec-1975/