The C-Phone Contract Case Study: Jin Ho And Narvin

799 Words4 Pages
The issue of the case study is whether a contract was appointed between Jin Ho and Narvin, in regards to the sale of the C-Phone Xi limited edition. Offer and acceptance is an essential element within a contract in order for it to be legally binding; within the case of Jin Ho and Narvin, there is an invitation to treat from Narvin, and an offer from Jin Ho; however, no acceptance from Narvin in regards to said offer. There was intention to create a legally binding contract between Narvin and Jin Ho as there was to be both consideration; for the phone from Narvin and the money from Jin Ho, and capacity of both parties; as neither were underage, intoxicated or mentally ill at the time the contract would have been made. Consent was only given…show more content…
In relation to the case Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421, the court held that the “advertisement constituted an invitation to treat and not offer” (Turner, et al., 2015) because parties whom are interested in creating a legally binding contract, must respond with an offer; using this information and previous case, it is fair to assume that both cases would have the same outcome if placed in front of the court. The postal acceptance rule was attempted to be used by Jin Ho with the letter placed in the letterbox when he was unable to reach Narvin at his house. This will not be held by a court as it is necessary to have a discussion regarding whether or not the postal rule will be used in order to accept the offer, also it will not be held as there was no agreement from Narvin to create a legally binding contract. Jin Ho offered an option in order for Narvin to keep the phone until Jin Ho had inspected it; however, because the option of $50 never changed hands, it would not be held by a court to be enough for a legally binding

    More about The C-Phone Contract Case Study: Jin Ho And Narvin

      Open Document