The Offer Contract Agreement

The stretch out Contr modus operandi AgreementOffer Contract Agreement neb acquired a remove pic. On second May, he sent a telex nub to Manjit that he was prompt to sell the Degas icon to her for 240,000, but that he must produce an answer within septette days. Manjit replied immediately by telex, stating that she was willing and that she would overcompensate for it in monthly instalments of 20,000 from each one.On 3rd May, Manjit veritable a recollect message from shaft that he would prefer six monthly cave inments of 40,000 for the painting. The next day, Manjit sent a letter to Peter which stated, I agree to pay monthly payments. Please arrange for the delivery of the painting on tenth May. Unfortunately, her letter reached Peter on 12th May.On eleventh May, in response to a magazine ad Manjit contacted the seller Victoria over the phone and left hand a message on her state machine, stating that she would acquire the Van Gogh painting for 201,000.On fifteenth May, both Peter and Victoria arrived at Manjits office, each claiming that she was ratifyually bound to grease ones palms their sundry(a)(prenominal) paintings. As Manjit had received a letter from her accountant that morning model that her business was in some difficulty, she now states the she does non wish to buy either painting. Advise Manjit.In English Law in rules of night club to form a subscribe, the following elements hold to be presentA valid wish has been pr introduceed by the first party to the other party or parties.The offer has been veritable unchanged by the second party or parties and this has been communicated to the offeror.There is an bearing by all parties to create intelligent relations, when they enter into the shorten and the parties have the capacity to centralize.The promises make within the contract are for valuable consideration.The terms of the contract are trustworthy.An offer is delimitate as an font of willingness to contract on c ertain terms, do with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the soulfulness to whom it is addressed, the offeree. The expression referred to in the definition faeces have various forms, much(prenominal) as a letter, news report card, fax, email, pack (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_ borrowing), etc., and the main criterion is that it has to perforce communicate the basis on which the offeror is prepared to contract.The courts will referee the aspect of intention, referred to in the definition, objectively. In Smith v. Hughes it has been emphasized that the important thing is not a partys real intentions but how a reasonable person would view the situation (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_ borrowing). This is attributable to the reason that in unity with mutual sense neither party would wish to relegate their side of the contract if it would make them culpable to damages.Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of ass ent to the terms of an offer (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance). A defendant cannot claim that it was never his intention to be bound by the agreement if it is established during exam that his action served to communicate to the other party or parties that he had in fact agreed.Assent may be exhibited in a physical body of ways and one of them is by the signing of a contract or it mogul consist of a promise to pay someone if the latter(prenominal) performs certain acts and may be accepted by the requested conduct instead of a promise to do the act. The performance of the requested act confirms that the party has agreed to the terms of the offer.What is required, without fail, is that in that respect should be evidence that each of the parties had, from an objective place, engaged in conduct manifesting their assent. This requirement of an objective perspective gains importance in subjects where one of the parties claims that an offer had not been accepted and th ereby takes advantage of the performance of the other party. In such congresswomans the test of whether a reasonable bystander would have perceived that the party has impliedly accepted the offer by conduct is relevant.The rules of acceptance areThe acceptance must be communicated, this implies that depending on the construction of the contract, the acceptance may not have to come until the presentment of the performance of the conditions in the offer, in as in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke hunk Comp each (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance), where the defendants, the proprietors of a medical preparation called the carbolic smoke hunk, issued an advertisement to the public, in which they offered to pay 100 to any person who contracted influenza after(prenominal) having used one of these smoke balls in a manner qualify by them and for a contract period. However, it is important to note that this offer was nonreversible or open to the whole world to accept. In the absence of such an unilateral offer advertisements are nothing more than an invitation to treat. In partridge v. Crittenden it was held that the offer for sales event of certain wild birds, which was il legal, was deemed to be, by the High police forcecourt as an invitation to treat and not offers for sale.An offer can only be accepted by the offeree (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance). An offer is not bound if another(prenominal)(prenominal) person accepts the offer on his behalf without his authorisation (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance) .It may be implied from the construction of the contract that the offeror has dispensed with the requirement of communication of acceptance (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance). If the offer specifies a method of acceptance thus such acceptance must be made using a method that is no less powerful than the method specified (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance). Silence cannot be const rued as acceptance, as held in Felthouse v. Bindley(http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance). The power of acceptance is always terminated by rejection or antipathetic offer by the offeree, revocation by the offeror prior to acceptance, slide down of clock metre, debt or incapacity of the offeror or offeree.In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke wind Company there was an advertisement that consumption of a smoke ball in the prescribe manner would protect the consumer from influenza. The plaintiff believing in this advertisement bought one of these carbolic balls and used it in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period but nevertheless contracted influenza. The court held that the plaintiff was authorize to recover the promised amount. However, the acceptance must be communicated and before acceptance, an offer can be withdrawn.In our present problem, Peter an art dealer was in possession of a Degas Painting which he offered to sell to Manjit, another art dealer for 240,000/-, with the condition that acceptance had to be communicated to him within seven days. To this Manjit replied by telex that she was willing to purchase the painting and that she would pay in monthly installments of 20,000/-. Manjits telex message cannot be considered to follow acceptance since she had made a counter offer to Peter.From the above it is evident that legally, Manjit had made a counter offer to Peter and not an acceptance of his offer according to the provisions of the contract act. An offeror can revoke an offer before it has been accepted, but such revocation has to be communicated to the offeree.After receiving Manjits counter offer, Peter again made an offer to pay for the painting by six monthly installments of 40,000/- each by telephone on the 3rd of May. Manjit indicated her acceptance by a letter, which she posted to Parker on the quaternary of May. The letter was correctly stamped and addressed but nevertheless it was received by Peter only on the 12t h of May.An offer will persist in in force untilFirst, its revocation by the offeror any cadence before acceptance and such revocation is communicated to the offeree.Second, it is rejected by the offeree out-of-pocket to a counter offer.Third, the offer lapses due to the expiry of a stipulated time limit.Fourth, a contract condition has failed.Finally, if the offeror has expired and notice of such demise is received by the offeree.In Hyde v grow , construction offered to sell his property for 1200 to Hyde. When Hyde rejected that offer, Wrench made a upgrade offer to sell for 1000. Hyde replied that he would buy the property if offered for 950, but Wrench refused to sell for this amount. Subsequently, Hyde wrote to Wrench that he would buy this property for 1000. The Court of court of chancery held that Hyde had rejected both offers made by Wrench and that an offer, once rejected, cannot be revived.Accordingly, there was no contract in existence and consequently, the action w as deemed to have failed. These facts clearly indicate that Hyde made a counter offer and in any effect tried to accept an offer which he had previously rejected.Therefore, in accordance to the case law discussed above, an offer which was rejected in the first instance by the offeree cannot be accepted later on in order to create a legally binding contract. In our present case Peter made an offer to Manjit for interchange the painting for a specified amount. Manjit made a counter offer in which she offered to pay by installments.Peter was not agreeable to the number of installments and accordingly, he made another in which the number of installments was reduced.Manjit accepted this offer but according to the Hyde v Wrench decision, Manjit cannot rely on the original offer since she made a counter offer subsequently, thusly there is no valid contract between Peter and Manjit. If the offeree rejects the offer, the offer has been destroyed and cannot be accepted in the future.Even o therwise, she had posted her letter of acceptance on the 4th of May, which reached Peter only on the 12th of May, in which she had made a time stipulation for the delivery of the painting by the 10th of May.However, since the letter, which was correctly stamped and addressed, was received only on the 12th of May, i.e. after the 10th of May by Peter, the contract is invalid. Consequently, Manjit is low no legal obligation to purchase the Degas painting from Peter.In think of of Victoria, on the 11th of May, Manjit saw a magazine advertisement in which Victoria had offered to sell a Renoir painting for the first offer above 200,000. Manjit contacted Victoria over the phone and left a message on her answering machine, stating that she would buy this painting for 201,000.The legal aspects to be considered are whether an advertisement constitutes a valid offer or not. Advertisements are termed as an invitation to treat and hence they do not constitute an offer, but only an indication o f a persons willingness to manage a contract.In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots , Boots were prosecuted for selling drugs in the absence of a qualified pill pusher. The procedure was that a guest, on entering the store was given a shopping handbasket and this customer after having selected which medicines to purchase, would place them in this basket and take them to the cash desk.In the vicinity of the cash desk a registered pharmacist would be available. The statute has made it unlawful to sell any listed poison unless the sale was effected under the supervision of a registered pharmacist.The Plaintiffs allegation was that the display of goods was tantamount to an offer which could be deemed to have been accepted when the customer put these drugs in the shopping basket, therefore, if the drugs were poisons then their sale took place at an instant of time which was prior to the pharmacists intervention.The Queens Bench and the CA rejected this argument, because th ey held that the offer to purchase originated from the customer only when the article was placed in the shopping basket and that the defendants had the choice to accept or reject this offer. Whenever, this purchase offer was accepted it was at the cash desk, where a registered pharmacist was available.Therefore, the courts held that there was no breach of the Act. In Harvey v. Facey, an indication by the owner of the property that he might be interested in selling at a certain price was regarded as an invitation to treat (ITT).Similarly, in Gibson v. Manchester County Council the words may be prepared to sell were held to be a notification of price and therefore not a distinct offer. The courts have taken a accordant approach in respect of the identification of invitation to treat, as compared with offer and acceptance, in common transactions. The display of goods for sale, either in a shop window or on the shelves of a self service store, is ordinarily toughened as an invitation to treat and not an offer, this was held by the judges in pekan v. Bell.In Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation the contract was entered into when and where the acceptance was received. lord Denning confirmed that the same principles also applied to acceptances by telephone. In respect of answering machines and voice mail the maximum delay for receipt of acceptance would be the next working day. Faulty hardware, lack of link paper or slipshod business practices, such as not checking the fax for days, does not stop or delay the acceptance of an offer.In our case Manjit in response to the advertisement given by Victoria for sale of the painting, placed a message in Victorias answering machine stating that she would buy the painting for 201,000/-. Victorias magazine advertisement constitutes an invitation to treat and the message left by Manjit constitutes an offer to purchase the painting. This message was left on the answering machine by Manjit on the 11th of May.Victoria d id not respond to this message but went on the 15th of May to Manjits office and insisted that Manjit should purchase the painting as there was a contract between them. Since, in this case there is no acceptance by Victoria, there is no binding contract. Therefore, Manjit need not buy the painting from Victoria. In this manner Manjit is not under any legal obligation, whatsoever, to perform these contracts as demanded by Peter and Victoria.BibliographyP.S Atiyah Consideration a restatement in Essays on Contract, Oxford University excite, 1986. P.S Atiyah An introduction to the law of contract 5th ed., Clarendon Press Oxford, 1995.H.G Beale, W.D Wishop, M.P furmston, Contract cases and materials 4th ed., Butterworth, 2000. M. Cope Duress, undue influence and unconscientious bargains, Monash studies in law, The law book company Ltd, 1985.E. McKendrick Contract law, 4th ed., Palgrave law masters, 2001. G.H Treitel The law of contract 10th ed., Sweet and Maxwell, 1999.