Back
to top
Aspects of a binding contract
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Olive advertised in the "For Sale" column of the Classic Car Journal - "1949 Triumph Roadster. Good condition. 1-year MOT, £13,000". The advertisement gave her address and telephone number. Paul saw the advertisement on Friday night and immediately wrote to Olive at her home address, agreeing to pay the £13,000 requested. He posted the letter on Saturday morning. Quentin also saw the advertisement on Friday evening and telephoned. There was no reply, but he left a message on the answering machine agreeing to buy the car for the asking price. Olive, who had gone away for the weekend, returned on Monday morning. She picked up Paul's letter and read it whilst listening to the messages on her answering machine, including the message from Quentin. On Tuesday she decided that she did not want to sell the car at all.
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
0
reply
Report
#2
Yep that question would throw me as well?
Who are we supposed to assume the valid contract t exists with? Paul or Quentin or both?
I know how to rescind a unilateral offer (or cases involving that sort of thing like rewards and you can’t just rescind if anyone had taken major steps to complete say a walk from London to Scotland) but is that what they want ? And both have fulfilled their part so too late to rescind here?
I can’t see any frustration here either? Or mistake or misrepresentation.
Odd question!
Who are we supposed to assume the valid contract t exists with? Paul or Quentin or both?
I know how to rescind a unilateral offer (or cases involving that sort of thing like rewards and you can’t just rescind if anyone had taken major steps to complete say a walk from London to Scotland) but is that what they want ? And both have fulfilled their part so too late to rescind here?
I can’t see any frustration here either? Or mistake or misrepresentation.
Odd question!
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Melanie*****)
Olive advertised in the "For Sale" column of the Classic Car Journal - "1949 Triumph Roadster. Good condition. 1-year MOT, £13,000". The advertisement gave her address and telephone number. Paul saw the advertisement on Friday night and immediately wrote to Olive at her home address, agreeing to pay the £13,000 requested. He posted the letter on Saturday morning. Quentin also saw the advertisement on Friday evening and telephoned. There was no reply, but he left a message on the answering machine agreeing to buy the car for the asking price. Olive, who had gone away for the weekend, returned on Monday morning. She picked up Paul's letter and read it whilst listening to the messages on her answering machine, including the message from Quentin. On Tuesday she decided that she did not want to sell the car at all.
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
Olive advertised in the "For Sale" column of the Classic Car Journal - "1949 Triumph Roadster. Good condition. 1-year MOT, £13,000". The advertisement gave her address and telephone number. Paul saw the advertisement on Friday night and immediately wrote to Olive at her home address, agreeing to pay the £13,000 requested. He posted the letter on Saturday morning. Quentin also saw the advertisement on Friday evening and telephoned. There was no reply, but he left a message on the answering machine agreeing to buy the car for the asking price. Olive, who had gone away for the weekend, returned on Monday morning. She picked up Paul's letter and read it whilst listening to the messages on her answering machine, including the message from Quentin. On Tuesday she decided that she did not want to sell the car at all.
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
(Original post by Catherine1973)
Yep that question would throw me as well?
Who are we supposed to assume the valid contract t exists with? Paul or Quentin or both?
I know how to rescind a unilateral offer (or cases involving that sort of thing like rewards and you can’t just rescind if anyone had taken major steps to complete say a walk from London to Scotland) but is that what they want ? And both have fulfilled their part so too late to rescind here?
I can’t see any frustration here either? Or mistake or misrepresentation.
Odd question!
Yep that question would throw me as well?
Who are we supposed to assume the valid contract t exists with? Paul or Quentin or both?
I know how to rescind a unilateral offer (or cases involving that sort of thing like rewards and you can’t just rescind if anyone had taken major steps to complete say a walk from London to Scotland) but is that what they want ? And both have fulfilled their part so too late to rescind here?
I can’t see any frustration here either? Or mistake or misrepresentation.
Odd question!
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Melanie*****)
however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
?
however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
?
1
reply
The next part of the question is the bit I'm struggling with: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Catherine1973)
Isn’t this bit the second part of the question that the poster had issues with?
Isn’t this bit the second part of the question that the poster had issues with?
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Melanie*****)
The next part of the question is the bit I'm struggling with: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
The next part of the question is the bit I'm struggling with: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
How much of contract law have you learnt so far as that is going to really dictate what you talk about.
0
reply
(Original post by james_law2.0)
Right I've read it all properly now, still half asleep!
How much of contract law have you learnt so far as that is going to really dictate what you talk about.
Right I've read it all properly now, still half asleep!
How much of contract law have you learnt so far as that is going to really dictate what you talk about.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by james_law2.0)
I have completely missed that part, i'll re read and re read your comments too.
I have completely missed that part, i'll re read and re read your comments too.
(Original post by james_law2.0)
Right I've read it all properly now, still half asleep!
How much of contract law have you learnt so far as that is going to really dictate what you talk about.
Right I've read it all properly now, still half asleep!
How much of contract law have you learnt so far as that is going to really dictate what you talk about.
Melanie*****
the question you've been set looks really difficult. its tougher than the ones set by the tops unis. i'm certain of it.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Audrey18)
imagine if you were a barrister before a judge and a judge had to correct you on your understanding of a piece of material which you did not read in its entirety and you told him that the reason you bungled it was because you were half asleep. what do you think the judge would remark? no prizes for guessing correctly
Melanie*****
the question you've been set looks really difficult. its tougher than the ones set by the tops unis. i'm certain of it.
imagine if you were a barrister before a judge and a judge had to correct you on your understanding of a piece of material which you did not read in its entirety and you told him that the reason you bungled it was because you were half asleep. what do you think the judge would remark? no prizes for guessing correctly
Melanie*****
the question you've been set looks really difficult. its tougher than the ones set by the tops unis. i'm certain of it.
I've seen many questions like this in the 'mid' universities. It's not really difficult at all.
0
reply
(Original post by james_law2.0)
Your first analogy is not really comparable. I obviously would not be sleeping in til half ten on a standard day nor telling the judge the reason why my lack of incompetence was due to sleep deprivation etc.
I've seen many questions like this in the 'mid' universities. It's not really difficult at all.
Your first analogy is not really comparable. I obviously would not be sleeping in til half ten on a standard day nor telling the judge the reason why my lack of incompetence was due to sleep deprivation etc.
I've seen many questions like this in the 'mid' universities. It's not really difficult at all.
0
reply
Report
#12
They probably mean something simple for the second part. It’s the sort of strange question I’d often see in tutorial work where we would just briefly discuss the issues. Is this an actual exam question or piece of coursework? Or just a tutorial question.
0
reply
(Original post by Catherine1973)
They probably mean something simple for the second part. It’s the sort of strange question I’d often see in tutorial work where we would just briefly discuss the issues. Is this an actual exam question or piece of coursework? Or just a tutorial question.
They probably mean something simple for the second part. It’s the sort of strange question I’d often see in tutorial work where we would just briefly discuss the issues. Is this an actual exam question or piece of coursework? Or just a tutorial question.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Melanie*****)
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
The first part of the question is regarding the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat, I've confirmed that this is merely an invitation to treat, therefore no contractual obligation exists, however the next part of the question is this: Assuming a contract to sell the car exists, how does Olive avoid having to sell the car?
This question has really thrown me! I don't think there is a contract at all, so it's very difficult for me to assume that there is and, secondly, if we are able to assume that one exists then surely Olive would be unable to avoid her contractual obligations? What am I missing here?
The second part is that you now have to assume there is a contract in place. I'll quickly explain the position should you come to the conclusion she cannot avoid either contract, the worst case is she doesn't fulfil either contract and is in breach of both. Best case is she fulfils one and still is in breach of contract.
If you have a contract in place then all the requirements of a contract have been fulfilled; offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations and capacity. I'm not going to go into detail but here is a link when you can terminate the contract.
https://hallellis.co.uk/termination-contracts/
Last edited by james_law2.0; 6 months ago
2
reply
Report
#15
I found quite a lot of the questions where quite vague.
You were given a scenario like hire a car not fit for purpose and everyone says sue for breach etc but no where had anyone actually first asked the car hire place to fix issue and then go onto sue if they refuse. It’s a bit separate from real world practice.
You were given a scenario like hire a car not fit for purpose and everyone says sue for breach etc but no where had anyone actually first asked the car hire place to fix issue and then go onto sue if they refuse. It’s a bit separate from real world practice.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by Catherine1973)
I found quite a lot of the questions where quite vague.
You were given a scenario like hire a car not fit for purpose and everyone says sue for breach etc but no where had anyone actually first asked the car hire place to fix issue and then go onto sue if they refuse. It’s a bit separate from real world practice.
I found quite a lot of the questions where quite vague.
You were given a scenario like hire a car not fit for purpose and everyone says sue for breach etc but no where had anyone actually first asked the car hire place to fix issue and then go onto sue if they refuse. It’s a bit separate from real world practice.
With pretty much all parts of litigation and in general, you should always ask the other side, whether this be setting aside a judgement or as you say, asking the other side to fix something. Academia is different to real life, while legal principles still apply it is different; you would never write a full essay and give it to the client, they just want the answer not how you get to it.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
