A) Is there a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip? Offer 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. Acceptance 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) Cases Banque Brussels Lambert v Australian National Industries (1989) 21 NSWLR 502. Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) n53 NSWLR 153, 171. Bressan v Squires [1974] 2 NSWLR 460. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1. Chappell v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, 855. Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037, 1040. Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 CH.27. Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General [1970] 1WLR 241, [1969] 3 All ER 1593. Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots cash chemists (southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6. Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 607. Legislation Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW)
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
The four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. The oral agreement between Sam and the chain store satisfies the agreement element of a contract definition because when the chain store offered to sell Sam 's invention at their stores, Sam accepted by agreeing to ship 1000 units in exchange. The second element of a contract, the “consideration of each party,” is satisfied because Sam and the chain store have something to give the other (1000 units of the invention in exchange for the exclusive sales of the product at their stores). The third element is “contractual capacity,” which may or may not be fulfilled since we do not know Sam 's age or whether
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 House of Lords
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para.
"Supreme Court of New South Wales." R v Maglovski (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 16 (4 February 2013). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/16.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(r%20and%20maglovski%20) (accessed October 12, 2013).
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
[8] NHS Trust A. NHS Trust A v M and NHS Trust B v H [2001].
An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons or to the world at large. The offeror is bound to fulfil the terms of his offer once it is accepted. The offer may be made in writing, by words or conduct.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
Stewart, I., and Joines V. (1987) TA Today, Nottingham and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Russell.
In English Law consideration is one of the three main areas of an enforceable contract. It may be defined as an act, forbearance or promise made by a single party that constitutes the price for which the promise of another, is bought. In simple terms, the basic understanding of consideration may be seen as a ‘give and take’ tactic between two parties.