Is there a Binding Agreement Between Dr Hu and Amy Pond?
1596 Words7 Pages
A) Is there a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip?
For there to be a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip, two factors must be present, these factors are and offer and acceptance. An offer can be defined as a willingness to enter into a bargain and in doing so does justify another person an understanding that his/her assent is invited and will conclude the bargain. Heydon JA suggested that an offer must ‘take form of a proposal for consideration which gives an offeree an opportunity to choose between acceptance and rejection’ .The offer in this scenario was made by Riversong Mediquip to sell Dr Hu medical equipment as was depicted in a previous correspondence between the parties. The offer was to sell the medical equipment to Dr Hu for the sum of $180 000. For this offer to be a real offer, it must appear to Dr Hu that an offer had been made and that if he did not reply to their offer then he would have entered into a binding agreement with Riversong Mediquip. ‘When an offer is made, for it to be a binding contract, it should not only be accepted, but that acceptance should be notified’ , Dr Hu did not respond to the offer sent to him by Riversong Mediquip, and therefore complying with their conditions of acceptance he has accepted the offer and entered into a contract with them.
An acceptance can be defined as an ascent to the terms of the offer. Blackburn J suggested that ‘if whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party and that other party, upon that belief enters into the contract with him the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as ...
... middle of paper ...
... (12th ed, 2012)
Trischa Mann (ed), Oxford Australian Law Dictionary (2011)
Banque Brussels Lambert v Australian National Industries (1989) 21 NSWLR 502.
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council  NSWCA 61; (2001) n53 NSWLR 153, 171.
Bressan v Squires  2 NSWLR 460.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  EWCA Civ 1.
Chappell v Nestle Co Ltd  UKHL 1.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd  AC 847, 855.
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc  HCA 8.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037, 1040.
Henthorn v Fraser  2 CH.27.
Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General  1WLR 241,  3 All ER 1593.
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots cash chemists (southern) Ltd  EWCA Civ 6.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 607.