King Krn And Couch Taters Case Study

a)
The issue here is whether there is a binding contract between King Korn(KK) and Couch Taters(CT).
A binding contract is define as “an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised at law”. There are four important elements necessary to the formation of a contract-Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and Intention to create legal relations.
In this case dated 1st September, Homer made enquires on the purchase of 10000kg of corn grain with KK, KK quoted the price of $0.50 per kg. Offer is defined as “an expression made by the offeror to the offeree communicating the offeror’s intention to perform a promise”. This is a provision of information as KK’s reply was a mere response to Homer’s query and not an offer. Therefore, Homer reply of having a deal is not an acceptance: Harvey V Facey (1893).
Subsequently, Homer asked KK if a reduction in price is possible if they purchase a higher quantity. KK responded that no reduction is allowed and informed Homer that the price now rise to $0.53 per kg. This is also a provision of information as KK’s reply is a mere price indication in the nature of invitation to treat and not an offer as the reply is vague, there is no clear expression of intention for KK to sell at the stated price.
Later in afternoon, Homer emailed CT that he has accepted the price of the

However based on R1 international Pte Ltd vs Lonstroff AG paragraph (R1) Paragraph-[52]. “It is common that parties to first agree on a set of essential terms then have ongoing discussions on the incorporation of other detailed terms.” Therefore, for CT and KK the standard terms can later be incorporated even though they have already agreed on an expressly terms over the phone call which then be reduced into writing by KK on the sales