Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Contract law and promise

Hey there, Im revising for my contract law exam and came across this question. Can someone please help me answer it.

Thank you

Miranda is a splendid oboe player who has high aspirations of
studying baroque oboe at the esteemed Royal Scottish Academy
of Music and Drama (RSAMD). Her tutor, Professor
Longbeanpole is extremely proud of her and promises that if she
gets accepted to the RSAMD he will buy her a very rare baroque
oboe made by the world famous oboe makers Howarth & Sons.
These are not only rare but are also extremely expensive at
approximately £10,000 and so this is something that Miranda
could only ever dream of, hence she is all the more determined to
get a place at the RSAMD.

Miranda was never short of confidence and is in no doubt that she
will get into the RSAMD and so, in anticipation of the new
Howarth & Sons oboe, she sells her rather inferior plastic Rico
model to Simeon. She sells it at an unrealistically low price to
Simeon, partly because of the prospect of the new Howarth &
Sons and partly because she fancies Simeon and hopes one day
to play a duet with him at the Royal Concert Hall.

On the night before the results of her audition for the RSAMD,
Miranda went out for a meal with professor Longbeanpole to the
newly opened vegetarian restaurant, Let’s Eat Soya and during
the meal she told the professor how much she was looking
forward to getting her new Howarth & Sons oboe.
The following morning Miranda received an email from professor
Longbeanpole in which he explained that he had joined a
Wrestling team and had actually donated the money he had set
aside for her oboe to the fund for a new wrestling ring and skintight lycra costumes for his fellow wrestlers. He will not therefore
be buying Miranda the Howarth & Sons oboe that he had
promised.

Later that day Miranda received news that she had got a place at
the RSAMD but her delight is overshadowed by the fact that she
has no oboe, having previously sold her Rico model at the
unrealistically low price to Simeon (who is now going out with
Bertha) and so there is no prospect of her getting the Howarth &
Sons due to her having no money and no prospect of hard cash
due to her new student status.

Advise Miranda

Reply 1

TimmonaPortella

No-one's going to talk you all the way through a problem question when there's no evidence that you've done any work yourself at all. Just pointing this out so that you don't have false hopes of a response.

Try and advise her yourself; if you come up with any specific issues -- "does X v Y imply that abc facts lead to z result?", etc -- ask away.

Reply 2

joe12

Just because I haven't written my answer DOES NOT mean that I have not done any work myself. I posted this to here other peoples opinion, plus it is my first time of using any forums page let alone this one!!!!

Reply 3

TimmonaPortella

Original post by joe12

Just because I haven't written my answer DOES NOT mean that I have not done any work myself... plus it is my first time of using any forums page let alone this one!!!!

Hence this

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Just pointing this out so that you don't have false hopes of a response.

But whatever you think best...

Reply 4

Pastaferian

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Hence this

But whatever you think best...

I am not a lawyer, but I think Joe's been given some sound advice on how forums work :yep:

Reply 5

Norton1

Original post by joe12

I suspect the first issue is acting in reliance on a gratuitous promise. The second perhaps 'grabbing at a bargain', but really, this looks to be first year contract law. Remove your finger from your anus and do some work.

Reply 6

Forum User

Is this a question about English law? If so, you could answer this in one line.

Reply 7

Norton1

Original post by Forum User

Is this a question about English law? If so, you could answer this in one line.

The inclusion of RSAMD suggests not. Would the lack of consideration be the problem in England?

Reply 8

Forum User

Original post by Norton1

The inclusion of RSAMD suggests not. Would the lack of consideration be the problem in England?

Yes, exactly, I don't see an arguable case that being accepted into the RSAMD constitutes a detriment to Miranda and thus amounts to consideration. She also can't use promissory estoppel as a cause of action.

I assume that the detrimental reliance on the otherwise gratuitous promise plays some important role in Scottish law?

Reply 9

Norton1

Original post by Forum User

In general terms, and I do stress for the OP that there may be factors in the problem which might make the answer different, gratuitous unilateral promises are enforceable in Scots law in certain scenarios.

Such obligations are not enforceable if not reduced to writing (Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 s.1 (2) (a) ii) unless they are in the course of business.

If it is not in the course of business then writing is required, subject to s.1 (3) and (4) of the 1995 Act

(3)Where a contract, obligation or trust mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above is not constituted in a written document complying with section 2 of this Act, but one of the parties to the contract, a creditor in the obligation or a beneficiary under the trust (“the first person”) has acted or refrained from acting in reliance on the contract, obligation or trust with the knowledge and acquiescence of the other party to the contract, the debtor in the obligation or the truster (“the second person”)—

(a)the second person shall not be entitled to withdraw from the contract, obligation or trust; and

(b)the contract, obligation or trust shall not be regarded as invalid,on the ground that it is not so constituted, if the condition set out in subsection (4) below is satisfied.

(4)The condition referred to in subsection (3) above is that the position of the first person—

(a)as a result of acting or refraining from acting as mentioned in that subsection has been affected to a material extent; and

(b)as a result of such a withdrawal as is mentioned in that subsection would be adversely affected to a material extent.

So the 1995 act imposes a personal bar (what the English concept of estoppel is called in Scotland) on one who knows his promise has been relied upon.