Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Law of contract and common law
Law of contract and common law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. Travelco’s defense Applicable Law The UCC applies to a contract for sale of goods. The common law applies to any other contract, such as services. Here, no sale of goods is involved in the agreement between Travelco and Polly, the common law governs. Valid Contract A valid contract is created through valid mutual assent and consideration. Mutual Assent A valid mutual assent requires valid offer and acceptance. Offer An offer is an objective manifestation of a willingness by offeror to enter into an agreement. It must be communicated to the offeree. Here, Travelco ran an advertisement which promises a free trip to Scotland for a one-week vacation as promotional award. Polly read the advertisement, so the offer was communicated. …show more content…
Both party must give consideration. In unilateral contract, the offeror’s promise must be exchanged with the offeree’s performance. To be a valid contract, Travelco’s promise and the Polly’s performance must be exchanged. Travelco will strongly argue that there was no consideration from Polly even though Travelco promised a free trip as legal detriment because listing on the telephone book is unlikely a legal detriment. Gift Gift is a transfer of property with nothing given in return and no consideration. Gift is voidable. Travelco will strongly argues that Polly did not give any consideration, and it was a gift. Therefore, Travelco can void the promise. Conclusion Travelco should assert i) no valid offer because it was an advertisement – Travelco is likely win, ii) if there was an offer, the offer was properly revoked – Travelco will not likely win, and iii) no valid consideration makes the gift promise that is voidable – Travelco will likely win. 2. Damages Likely to Recover Damages To recover damages, they need to be foreseeable when Polly accepted the potential offer. (1) Cost of Listing Telephone Number Polly will likely recover the damages because the cost of listing her phone number was an additional cost and
Our decision was based on determining if there was contract formed and if the terms of said contract were performed by both parties. We found that Abigail placed an advertisement with the intent to lead readers to believe that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies” for $100, “quoted for immediate acceptance”. Alex responded to Abigail’s advertisement and accepted her offer by submitting the required $100 payment to the P.O. Box, as stipulated in the advertisement, and inquired about when he could pick up
That said, we agree that the core of commercial transactions and the Uniform Commercial Code are fundamental bases for international commercial transactions. Over the years, all laws have influenced society to shape their format into better laws more applicable to the reality of each time. The same has happened with the UCC, to better serve the demands of today’s business commerce. The UCC serves today as such a complete version for business transactions that common law will only apply when the Code is not spoken. One example of this situation is that prior to the adoption of the UCC, sales contracts were governed by the common law of contracts.
Caremelo maybe able to argue that at the time they made the arrangement they all intended the agreement about the flight and accommodation to be confirmed be legally binding.
Contracts are governed by both common law and the Uniform Commercial code. Contracts formed out of an agency are governed by common law. Contracts involving an agency needs to have an understanding of duty and an offer in the form of compensation or the agent can work voluntarily. Contracts involving the sale of goods are governed by the Uniform Commercial code. A contract for the sale of goods under the UCC has to be made by “designated merchants” (Dalan, 1977)
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
While there are lots of authors who are argued in favour of this codification since two centuries, practitioners and business in the English community had always been afraid about this idea. To understand the context of this debate, I will, first, briefly explain what do we generally mean by the term ‘codification’. Then, I’ll take few points about the origins of English commercial law and describe its modern definition. Finally, I will outline the main arguments why I am against the proposition of a commercial
S.6(2) states that as against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (seller's implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
We decided that we would not tell the buyer about my exhaustion (wife) or that we needed the money to sail around the world. We were afraid that he would use it against us.
Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.
To distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat, it is necessary to look at the intention of the person making it. It is not an offer unless it was made with the intention that it should be binding as soon as the person to whom it was addressed communicates his assent. Some examples of invitations to treat are: Display of goods in shops Advertisement (which can be of bilateral transaction or unilateral contract). Ticket cases Auction sales Tenders Subject to contract Duration and termination of offer. An offer continues in existence, capable of acceptance until it is brought to an end.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
An invitation to treat is an invitation to form a proposal, and thus there is no legal consequences. (Nabi Baksh and Arjunan, 2005) An offer must be differentiated from an invitation to treat. (Lee and Detta, 2009) In this question, Roland was making an invitation to treat when he displayed the price tag on the car vehicle. Actually, he is inviting customers to form an offer to him. When the customers consent the price and discussed with Roland, both of them actually are making the offer. In this situation, it is depends on whether Roland want accept or not. Thus, Bernie is making an offer when she consent to buy the car stated as RM10 000. Bernie implies her willingness to buy the car marked RM10 000 with the expectation of Roland will sell the car to her at this price. Obviously, Bernie is the offeror. A contract will come into being when the people who forms the invitation treat accepts the offer of the customer, for instance Roland accept the offe...
no one gives who possesses not, that is to say, no person can give a
In the case of one party promising to give another party £50, it is merely seen as a gift, therefore this is considered unenforceable as a simple contract. This may be justifiable as there is nothing which clearly illustrates that, it is a necessity for a party to give something, in order for them to be able to enforce a promise. This is also known as the “quid pro quo,” it has been similarly illustrated in; Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] AC 847 (HL).