Contract Law Text - Cases - and Complex Materials

Question: Discuss about the Contract Law for Text, Cases, and Complex Materials. Answer: Introduction: A statement, which is made through an advertisement of any form, which is incomplete with respect to the elements required to form a valid contract, is an invitation to an offer, which expresses the intention of the party to negotiate the terms of the agreement and not an offer itself (Hunter 2015). This concept has been broadly discussed in the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. In this case, the court provided that an acceptance of invitation to an offer does not result in formation of a contract (Perillo 2014). An offer to a contract is constituted when the offeror has the intention to bind the offeree to the terms of a legally binding agreement. The offer can be communicated in any form such as newspapers, fax, emails and even through implied conduct, as long as the offeror has the intention to bind the offeree to the terms of the offer (McKendrick 2014). This provision was provided through the objective test in the case of Smith V Hughes 1971 LR6 QB 597. The court in this case provided that parties own intention has to be determined by applying the test of reasonability that is analyzing how a reasonable person would view the given situation (Hillman 2012). An offer cannot be constituted if it does not contain its minimum required elements. The minimum required elements to constitute an offer are the elements of price, delivery date, and validity of offer, description of the item in context and mode of payment (Puil and Weele 2014). Acceptance: an acceptance to an offer has to be unconditional and as a general rule has to be communicated to the offeror by the offeree, thus concept has been provided in the case of Powell v Lee 1908 (Chen 2012). A partial acceptance is no acceptance at all, if the acceptance contains additional terms, which are not present in the offer it is regarded as a counter offer and not an acceptance itself (Ayres 2012). The postal rule of acceptance is the different from the general principles of acceptance. According to this rule, an acceptance is said to be made by the offeree when the acceptance is posted by him and not when it actually reaches the offeror (Cartwright 2016). Posted in this case refers to the stage when the letter of acceptance goes beyond by the control of the offeree. This concept has been discussed in many cases but came to light from the landmark case of Adams V Lindsell (1818) B in this case the court held that the acceptance has been made when the letter is actually posted, it is irrelevant in this case whether or when it reaches the offeror. This rule had been latter acknowledged in the case of Dunlop V Higgins 1848 1 HL Cas 381 (Hillman 2013). In order to constitute a valid offer made by the offeror, there must be a valid offer, which has been accepted through an unconditional acceptance by the offeree (Zamir 2014). In a contract, there must be a promise from doing or abstaining from doing an act and such promises must be covered with a lawful consideration (Byrd and Hruschka 2012). The parties to the contract have to agree on the same thing in the same sense for a valid contract formation along with a valid offer and acceptance (Hunter 2015). The innocent party to a contract is entitled to get equitable remedies such as injunctions and specific performance with respect to the breach of contractual terms by the other party (Hart 2016). The innocent parties also have other remedies available with respect to the breach of contract; the parties can claim damages for the loss incurred by them for the breach of the contract. These damages either nominal or substantial can be claimed by the innocent party from the party who has breached the contract (Butler et al. 2013). According to the principles of the case Hadley v Baxendale 1854, innocent parties may only recover losses, which they have suffered within reasonable contemplation of the breach of contract (DiMatteo and Hogg 2016). According to the principles of the case Robinson v Harman [1948] 18 LJ Ex 202 the main aim of the court is to put the innocent paltry in the position in which she would have been if the contract have not been breached. Cost of cure and value are the two bases, which the court considers to provide damages to the innocent party (Burton 2013). The deposits by an innocent party can only be recovered if the party had lien over the deposit according to the principles of the case Chattey and Another v Farndale Holding Inc [1996] EWCA Civ 696 Application: The three state hotel (Shingles) had made an advertisement in the magazine with respect to an exhibition in the hotel. The advertisement only contained the details about the exhibition, the discount available and the time by which such bookings or payments were to be made which was 31 January. This magazine advertisement did not constitute a valid offer, and it was only a form of invitation to an offer and willingness to negotiate. This can be concluded, as the main elements required to form a valid offer were not present in this case. The elements of price, mode of payment, time of delivery were not provided for in the statement. Appling the provisions of the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 in this situation it can be confirmed that a valid offer had not been made in this situation with respect to the advertisement. With respect to the invitation to an offer, an offeree was supposed to communicate an offer to the offeror. The phone call made by Sam on 15 January to the hotel was not an offer but was a mere inquiry, as it did not have the elements and intention required to constitute a valid offer. On the same day, a valid offer had been made by the hotel by quoting a price of $15000 for the purpose of the exhibition. However, there was no formation of a contract in this event, as the offer was not accepted by Sam, as she wanted to checkout other options, which were available to her. On 23 January Sam had sent an email to the hotel, that she is very interested in taking the stand in question but , also said that she can only pay 14000 for the stand against an offer of 15000 initially made by the hotel. This statement made by Sam did not account to a valid acceptance, as a valid acceptance cannot have any different terms with respect to the offer. This statement made by Sam was a counter offer made to the hotel to accept. Sam in this case also made a fresh invitation to an offer to the hotel with respect to reserving a room for the exhibition. This was an invitation, as it did not have the element of price in it. The postal rule of communication is applicable on emails and text massages as well with a few modifications, with respect to emails the rule of communication. In this case is a communication is said to be complete when the email goes beyond the control of person sending it. However, in the case of an offer, the offeree has to have the knowledge of the existence of an offer in to make that offer valid. The hotel sent an email to Sam on 23 January, with respect to the counter offer and the fresh offer made by Sam. The email stated that the lowest they can charge for the stand is $14500 with respect to the counter offer of $14000 for the stand made by Sam. The hotel also agreed to book the small room that Sam had wanted through a fresh offer provisionally along with the purchase of the stand. In this case, it is to be noted that the offer made by the hotel through the email to Sam was not replied by her. However, she had read it and had the knowledge of the existence of the offer made by the hotel. The offer made by the hotel through thee email on 23 January had certain terms and conditions which had to be complied in order to constitute a valid acceptance. The terms and conditions of the offer stated that the offer would laps if a deposit amount of $ 1000 if not made to the hotel within 31 January. The offer made by the hotel also had the term that a form had to be filled and returned to the hotel within the same date in order to constitute a valid contract. In order to constitute a valid acceptance the knowledge of the offeree about the existence of a valid offer is enough. Although Sam did not reply to the email sent by the hotel, she had the knowledge about the offer made by the hotel as she read the email. Thus if in this case an acceptance is made by Sam it would account to be a valid acceptance. Sam with respect to the offer made of 23 January by the hotel had posted a letter to the hotel, which contained a bank order worth $1000 as asked by the hotel. The letter also contained a statement in which she made an expressed acceptance with respect to the price of the stand. The letter also contained a clause for free publicity. This clause cannot be regarded as an additional term to the acceptance as there was no consideration, which is required to form a contract. According to the principles of postal rule provided in the case of Adams V Lindsell (1818) B and Dunlop V Higgins 1848, 1 HL CAS 381 an acceptance through post is deemed to be made when the letter is actually posted by the offeree and not when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror. A few weeks later, Sam was given the knowledge that the hotel that the small meeting room which she had made a booking for, is no longer vacant and not available to her for the purpose of the exhibition. Sam has also been provided with the knowledge that the special price, which were applicable for the stands no longer, exist. In addition, she had been provided with a new offer by the hotel worth $20000 for reserving a medium sized room. In this situation by applying the postal rule, it can be concluded that a valid contract was formed between Sam and the hotel as soon as Sam had posted the letter and completed and returned the form provided by the hotel through an email. As soon as this action was completed by Sam, the hotel is bound by the terms of contract formed between them legally and the breach of any terms with respect to the contract would attract penalties for the hotel. Thus, in this case it can be concluded that there was a valid contract between the hotel and Sam with respect to the stand and the small meeting room. The contract was formed between them not before 31 January. Applying the principles of the case Hadley v Baxendale [1854] in this situation it can be concluded that Sam will suffer significant loss by not able to put her flowers in exhibition if the contract is breached. It is reasonable to assume in this case that the loss, which Sam is going to suffer, will be a direct result of the breach of contract by the hotel. Sam can claim specific performance of the contract through the court at its discretion. Sam also can claim damages as a right for breach of contract according to the principles of the case Robinson v Harman [1948] 18 LJ Ex 202 Sam is not entitled to get the deposits money back as she had no lien over it according to the provisos of the case Chattey and Another v Farndale Holding Inc [1996] EWCA Civ 696. Conclusion There is a valid contract between Sam and the Hotel (Shingles) and she is entitled to damages for the breach of the contract. References Ayres, I., 2012.Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press. Burton, S.J., 2013. High Court Case Summaries. Contract Law: Keyed to Burtons Casebook on Contract Law. Butler, D.A., Christensen, S., Dixon, B. and Willmott, L., 2013.Contract Law Case Book. Oxford University Press. Byrd, B.S. and Hruschka, J., 2012.Kant's Doctrine of right. Cambridge University Press. Cartwright, J., 2016.Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing. Chen-Wishart, M., 2012.Contract law. Oxford University Press. DiMatteo, L.A. and Hogg, M. eds., 2016.Comparative Contract Law: British and American Perspectives. Oxford University Press. Hart, D.K., 2017.From Contract to Status: The Story of Contract Law and Inequality. Routledge. Hillman, R., 2013.Principles of Contract Law, 3d (Concise Hornbook Series). West Academic. Hillman, R.A., 2012.The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law(Vol. 28). Springer Science Business Media. Hunter, H., 2015. Modern Law of Contracts. Hunter, H., 2015. Modern Law of Contracts. McKendrick, E., 2014.Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Perillo, J., 2014.Contracts, 7th (Hornbook Series). West Academic. Puil, J.V.D. and Weele, A.V., 2014. Contract Law and Tort Law. InInternational Contracting: Contract Management in Complex Construction Projects(pp. 285-292). Zamir, E., 2014. Contract Law and Theory: Three Views of the Cathedral (reviewing Reconstructing Contracts by Douglas G. Baird).University of Chicago Law Review,81(4), p.15.