The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Please Help with this contract law question due tomorrow and i still haven't finished

Elliot, a keen stamp collector, saw a notice for an auction of stamps in the January edition of Antiques News. He traveled 300 kilometers to attend the auction in order to bid for a particularly rare example of stamps, specifically mentioned in the lists of items to be auctioned. However, when he got to the auction site he found a notice outside, stating that the auction had been cancelled. Elliot went into a nearby antique shop and saw an example of the pottery he had come to bid for. The price ticket stated that it was £500, but Elliot said he was only willing to pay £350 for it. The shopkeeper, Cruz said he would sell it for £400, Elliot said he would like some time to think about it over lunch, therefore Cruz agreed not to sell it before Elliot returned. However, when Elliot returned to buy the pottery, he found that Cruz had already sold it to someone else, who had paid £450 for it.
Advise Elliot weather he has a legal case against
(a) the auctioneers, for the expense of his travel to the auctions; and
(b) Cruz, for not selling the pottery to him
Reply 1
Avatar for rival_
rival_
10
Well he never agree to buy it, it was a verbal contract and even that he was uncertain. Therefore he should have been aware as a keen collector that these goods are valuable and that they don't wait for people, business is business.
Reply 2
Avatar for zaliack
zaliack
16
1) You need to establish whether it's an invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. A quick look through your textbook should tell you it's only an invitation to treat (There was no first come first served, no explicit guarantee that all items will be sold, no explicit statement that there was no reserves etc). But, you could nonetheless argue it's a unilaterial contract - and then look at the damages section in your book for the rules relating to expenditure prior to performance of a contract.

2) Likewise, you need to establish whether it's an invitation to treat or a valid bilaterial contract with acceptance. The haggling was an offer, counter offer and counter, and counter-counter offer (textbook stuff). There was no valid acceptance of the offer yet, so you can try to argue:

A) That there was a parallel unilateral contract which agreed not to sell the item until he come back; or
B) Estoppel;

Overall, I don't think he has a leg to stand on.
He has no case at all imo.

If the person hosting the auction got sued for every single auctioneers travel expense, then he'd be out of money. It would be a different matter if you had to, let's say, pay to book a seat at the auction to guarantee attendance, but from what I've read there's no mention to this at all. If there was then I reckon you'd be entitled to both a refund and compensation for travel expense.

With regards to Cruz, the local businessman, he wasnt in the wrong to sell it. The customer offered $350 and decided to think about whether it was worth paying another $50 on top. However bearing in mind that the pottery costed an original price of $500, the businessman was giving him a pretty sweet discount and even then the customer wasn't sure about whether he wanted to buy it or not.

Another customer came along who was willing to spend an extra $50 on top of Elliott's offer. The chances would be highly skewed that Elliott would spend $450, since he had said he was "only willing to pay $350" and subsequently had to think about whether paying $400 was worth the money. Because of this, there is no contract. The maximum money Elliott had expressed he wanted to pay was $400, which would only be certain after spending time thinking about it over lunch.
(edited 11 years ago)
If you read Harris v Nickerson you will have your answer to the first part of this question. The facts are basically identical.

For the second part, Cruz can sell the antique to anyone unless he has a contract with Elliot not to sell it before Elliot returns. There can't be such a contract because Elliot has not given any consideration for it. Look at Dickinson v Dodds for example.
Reply 5
Avatar for Care-Free
Care-Free
15
The shopkeeper, although promising to hold the item back, didnt recieve any consideration for his promise from Elliot, an offer can be withdrawn any time before acceptance takes place, to make his promise to hold the item for Elliot enforceable they'd have to enter a whole to contract for it.
In any contract question you need to think carefully about whether you have a contract. To have a contract the claimant must show (1) offer and acceptance (2) certainty (3) consideration (4) intent to create legal relations. Work through those four elements for each claim.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you