Contract Law question driving me mad!!!Watch
A has seen some new vacuum cleaners for his business in a warehouse for the industry. The price for the vacuum cleaners was displayed as £40 per machine. A told the seller at the warehouse that he was interested in buying in bulk and would come back the following week to buy twenty of them. The seller said “that sounds good”. When A returned the following week to make the purchase, the seller told him that there were only ten machines left in stock. He also informed A that the price was incorrectly shown the week before and that the vacuum cleaners are actually £400 each. A is angry about this and seeks your advice as to whether he has any contractual rights against the seller’s company. Please provide written advice on the issues arising and using case law examples as appropriate.
- Notes with colour, mindmaps, flowcharts, key cases and facts and structures for problem solving questions
- All you need to know in one place!
- Fantastic set of notes, as a supplement to your University lectures.
- Aimed at first year LLB Law students, sitting exams at Level 4.
- Covers all topics in Contract Law, in a compact but user friendly way.
- MUST HAVE for studentS struggling with Contract Law principles.
- Applicable for all law students studying for a qualifying law degree I used these notes and got a 1st!
I hope it helps! It's worth paying a little for a good grade in one of the most important topics in law.
To answer your question, it seems a little confusing a first, LLB law student here, the seller has no contractual obligation to hold the stock for him as there was no acceptance and consideration which makes a valid contract. Along with this, there is case law that supports this but i can not remember of the top of my head, the £40.00 incorrect sticker, is a invitation to buy not an offer, therefore not contract is made and it does not matter if it was incorrectly labelled, no shop has obligation to sell it at that price.
so from my understanding the conventional approach is basically finding what the offer is and if there was an acceptance, so it allows courts to easily determine if there was a legally binding contract. And a test case is basically a case that has a significant outcome for future situations similar to this case. This was a significant ‘test case’ because not only was Mr Gibson going through the rejection of a Council House, but also many others. Lord Diplock felt this was an issue to be sympathetic towards as the appeal will affect those who were in the same situation as Mr Gibson. This remarked the possibility of this case changing the legal principle on what constitutes a offer and acceptance.