Contract � Tutorial 1 by K2Tytb9

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 1

									Contract – Tutorial 1
Q1. The display of goods is an invitation to treat. (Fisher v Bell). As such, any displayed price is not an offer and
cannot be accepted to form a binding contract. The shop has the right to refuse to sell the item.

(This answer is not correct in law. The CPA makes it a criminal offence not to honour a displayed price)

Q2. No contract is established until the goods have been “purchased” at the till. I.e. presentation of the goods at the
till represents the offer. (Pharamceutical Soc of GB v Boots Cash Chemists). It is therefore not possible to sue for
breach of contract. Redress may be possible via tort law.

Q3. A contract requires the following: Agreement (offer + acceptance), consideration and intention. In The
acceptance was a mistake. The claim would need to survive the (objective) “reasonable man” test. I.e. it would be
necessary to determine whether a reasonable man would conclude that there was no intention and the acceptance
was a mistake.

If it was concluded that a contract exists, the damages for breach of contract would expected to be the difference
between the accepted bid and the next highest bid.

Q4. The circular could be viewed as an invitation to treat, or a unilateral offer.

Advertisements are normally considered to be invitations to treat. (Partridge v Crittenden). This includes price list
circulars. (Granger & Sons v Gough - wine merchants send price list circular held to be an invitation to treat). It
could be argued that the wording of the offer by Chris is no more than a description of the available goods (lecture
notes) and a preliminary price (£10).

Alternatively, unilateral offers describe the tasks that must be performed to accept the offer (Carhill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co). The circular describes the task that must be completed to accept the unilateral offer - to send £10
to Chris. Since D, E & F fulfilled this requirement, a contract could be said to exist. The previous mentioned cases
of Granger & Sons could also be used to support the claim for the existence of a unilateral offer – orbiter states
that had the wine merchant been a manufacturer, and hence having no issues of limited supply, the circular may
have been considered contractually binding.

Even if the case went against C, D, E or F could not claim damages as C returned the £10. D, E and F could not
claim against C for their examination failure as it is too remote.

								
To top