Business law ASSIGNMENT by yli202


More Info
									LAW ASSIGNMENT sample

1. Offer

Issue 1: Is there any invitation to treat?

Rules and applications:

In this case, Mary seeks to buy a second-hand copy of the prescribed text book. On 12 June,
she placed and advertisement on the Marketplace and state that she will pay a fair price. The
advertisement that Mary post on market place is an invitation to treat refer to Partridge v
Crittenden1. The rule of law state that not all proposals are offers, some are merely invitation
to treat. An advertisement placed in the media may amount to an offer or to an invitation to


The fact that Mary posts an advertisement on marketplace is an invitation to treat.

Issue 2: Is there any valid offer between Mary and John; Mary and Rob?

Rules and applications

In this case, Rob and John are both offerors makes offer to offeree Mary. However, Mary
rejects the original offer by making a counter offer with John and also makes another new
offer with Rob after Rob’s enquiry. Therefore, Mary naturally becomes offeror for offeree
John and Mary also is an offeree in Rob’s position.

Sub-Issue 1: Is it enquiry?

Rules and applications:

An enquiry merely indicates a statement of future possibility and no reasonable person
would interpret it as an offer. While Rob enquiry about the cover is torn off, there is no offer
exist between Mary and Rob. Based on Harvey v Facey2, in this case, Rob is indicating that if
marry decide to buy text book without cover page, there is no intention to make an offer.
However, according to Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean3, the differences is enquiry is
made by offeror but not offeree. So the rule in this case does not apply. Therefore, the torn
cover page could be a condition that Rob has intended to make an offer that legally binding.

Sub-conclusion: Therefore, there is an existing offer between Mary and Rob with enquiry
and the Torn Page could be the condition terms.

  Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421 (Queen’s Bench Division)
  Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 (Privy Council)
  Stevenson Jacques& Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346.

Sub-issue 2: Is there any counter offer?

Rules and applications:

After watching the advertisement posted by Mary, her cousin John negotiates with her and
making an offer for $90. In this case, Mary immediately rejects the original offer as an
offeree and also makes a new offer for 50$ for John which could result as a counter offer.
Once counter offer was made between Mary and John, the original offer 90$ has been
immediately terminated. The counter offer could appear in Hyde v Wrench’s4 case. The rule
of Law holds that any material alteration of the terms of the offer will be a counter offer.
A counter offer simply means that the existing offer has been rejected and a new offer made.
Contract negotiations are often just a series of counter offers.

Sub-conclusion: There is a counter offer exist between Mary and John, and the original
offer has been immediately terminated.

Sub-issue 3: Can the offer be revoked?

Rules of law: Based on Routledge v Grant5, the general rule is that an offeror may revoke an
offer at any time prior to the offer being accepted even if the offeror has promised not to
revoke it. The reule that an offer may be revoked prior to acceptance is subject to the proviso
that the offeror has not granted the offeree an option. Furthermore, the rule of law resulting
in Goldsborough Mort Co Ltd v Quinn6 and Byrne Co v Van Tienhoven Co7’s cases state that
an offer is not withdrawn until the revocation has actually been communicated to the offeree
and also an offer cannot be revoked if there is an option.

Applications: The first offer could be the counter offer that Mary makes for John for
purchase text book for $50. Due to Mary may revoke an offer at any time prior to the offer
being accepted. Mary may revoke this offer by 14 June. The second offer that Mary makes
for Rob for purchase text book for $25 also can be revoked by 15 June. In this case, the offers
between Mary, John and Rob have no option or consideration. Mary has no intention to
revoke any offer that making for John and Rob due to no valid communication send from


Mary could revoke the offer for John by 14 June and also revoke the offer for Rob by 15 June
if she tells Rob or John about the revocation.

  Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334; 49 ER 132 (Rolls Court)
  Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653; 130 ER 920 (Court of Common Pleas)
  Goldsborough Mort Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 (High Court)
  Byrne Co v Van Tienhoven Co (1880) LR 5 CPD 342 (Court of Common Pleas)

Part 1 Overall conclusion: There are valid offers exist between Mary and John as well as
Rob and John.

2. Acceptance

Issue 1: Is there any valid acceptance between Mary and John & Mary and Rob?

Sub-issue 1: is acceptance must be final and unqualified?

Rules and applications: Refer to Masters v Cameron8, the offeree must intend to be bound
by the agreement. There is no acceptance if offeree reserving the right to change his mind and
subject to contract is not a final and unqualified acceptance. Naturally, the offeree must
accept the terms specified by the offeror. In this case, for the offer between Mary and John,
the acceptance is final and unqualified due to the valid communication by mail without
postal rule apply. Otherwise, there is no subject to contract for both John and Rob.

To top