Legal Capacity, Consent, And Legality Of The Common Law Of Contract

1805 Words8 Pages
Introduction Jane, Jerry and Sam is attempting to launch proceedings against NAP for loss rising from cancellation of the competition outlined in the question. The plaintiffs’ actions would depend on whether there is a breach of contract by NAP. It is essential that key facts come under close scrutiny and are considered in relation to contract law. In order to advise Jane, Jerry and Sam the application of the common law of contract will determine if a contract exists, terms of the contract and whether a breach of contract has occurred. In the event there is a breach the extent of damages to be awarded must also be considered. Is there a contract? In order for Jane, Jerry and Sam to sue NAP a legally enforceable contract must be in place. For oral or written contracts to be enforceable there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to be legally bound. Legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of purpose are additional elements of a contract that has been satisfied in this case. The radio advertisement constitutes an invitations to treat as there are no signs NAP had made a firm promise along with terms to which it is willing to be legally bound in contrast with Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball . Given the nature of a competition there is no guarantee all entrants would necessarily win tickets. While the radio announcement does state “to win one of the premium tickets” it would be reasonable to assume and interpret it as a chance to win rather than an assurance. However, similar to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case $3000 had been paid to secure tickets for the concert and dinner indicative of NAP’s sincerity in the promotion. Sally on behalf of NAP make Jane an offer when she declare her as a winner. By decl... ... middle of paper ... ...NAP and Apple Cider had no reason to doubt NAP ability to fulfil their obligations. Unlike to High Trees regardless of whether the promisor knew or intended the promisee to act, the forthcoming concert necessitates promotions and setting up of equipment beforehand. There should not be claims of not being aware of this as it is implied. Evidently, with the assumption of a contract in place that the promisee relies to his/her detriment as it is the case with Walton Stores . The failure to deliver on NAP’s part to perform its obligations has resulted in Apple Cider incurring the loss. Furthermore, no steps have been taken by NAP to communicate to Apple Cider of the potential that they may be unable to deliver their promises. Conclusion Apple Cider has high prospects of recovering the $50,000 spend on promotional activities prior to the cancellation of the concert.

More about Legal Capacity, Consent, And Legality Of The Common Law Of Contract

Open Document