Issues that Need to Be Adressed when Advising Amy About Sleepy Hollow Nursing Home's Assets and Liabilities

1243 Words3 Pages

The following are issues that need to be addressed when advising Amy about Sleepy Hollow Nursing Home’s rights and liabilities. The first issue is whether or not Ben’s letter is an offer. “An offer is a statement of the terms upon which the offeror is prepared to be bound if acceptance is communicated while the offer remains alive”. If the offeree understands that the offeror intends to be bound by their proposal, if unequivocally accepted by said offeree, there is an offer. Bens letter contained a quote of $50,000 to do the job with all materials and paints included and he had previously visited the nursing home to give Amy advice about the job. These facts suggest that Ben communicated to the offeree effectively that he had the requisite intent to be bound by these terms if Amy accepted. Therefore, Ben’s letter is an offer. The second issue is whether or not Amy’s withdrawal of acceptance in relation to Ben’s offer was valid. Where an offeree accepts an offer via letter, he/she can withdraw that acceptance through a faster method of communication before the letter is received by the offeror. Amy withdrew her acceptance by telephoning Ben the day before he received the letter. This was a speedier method of communication. In Dunmore v Alexander, an acceptance letter was sent. Later, a letter retracting the acceptance was sent. Both letters reached the destination at the same time. It was found that there was no contract because the retraction letter was quicker. Although this is so, the postal acceptance rule is that the offeree has made a complete acceptance as soon as he/she posts the letter. Due to this, some argue that a later rejection of this offer is ineffective regardless of whether or not the offeror receives... ... middle of paper ... ...uarie University, above n 3. Patterson v Dolman (1908) 14 ALR 240. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (First category). John Gooley, Peter Radan and Ilija Vickovich, Principles of Australian Contract Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 3rd ed, 2014) 89 [5.29]. (2011) 275 LSJS 635. Ibid. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (Third category). Gooley, Radan and Vickovich, above n 25 [5.32]. Macquarie University, above n 1, [5]. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (First category). Wigan v Edwards (1973) 1 ALR 497, 512. Macquarie University, above n 3, [6]. (1809) 170 ER 1168. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB (23 November 1989) 1. Ibid. Ibid 15-6. Ibid. (1994) 34 NSWLR 723, 741-7. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. (1994) 34 NSWLR 723. (2007) 232 CLR 562. Ibid 576-7.

More about Issues that Need to Be Adressed when Advising Amy About Sleepy Hollow Nursing Home's Assets and Liabilities

Open Document