1|P a g e Part A Issue Whether a valid contract has formed between Rachel and ChunkyChicken by fulfilling all the essential elements of the contract? Law A contract is referred to a legal agreement which his formed between two or more parties. This agreement gives them the right to enforce the contractual terms on each other. The terms of the contracts bind its parties, and they have to comply with its terms. However, this right is available only in case a valid contract is formed between the parties. A valid contract is formed when its parties fulfil all the essential elements of the contract. These elements include offer, acceptance, capacity, legality, intention and consideration.1Firstly, an offer is made to form a contract which is referred to a proposal or proposition which gives rise to an agreement between parties after receiving acceptance. It can be expressed or implied, and it must be clear and unambiguous. An offer can be revoked by a party at any time before its acceptance unless it is supported by consideration as given in the case of Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn2. Moreover, it is important that parties must differentiate between offer and an invitation to treat. Certain examples of invitation to treat include broacher, advertisement and display of goods for sale. InPharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd3case, it was held by the court that goods which are displayed on shelf for the sale of customers are not considered as a valid offer instead it is considered as an invitation to treat.4A valid acceptance is another key element of the contract which is referred to clear and undoubted assent to the offer to comply with all of its terms. Certain rules must be fulfilled in order to constitute acceptance as valid. It must be clear and undoubted and must be communicated. It must be given with appropriate knowledge, and the party must use correct method while communicating acceptance. 1David Parker and Gerald Box,Business law for business students(Lawbook Co., 2013). 2(1910) 10 CLR 674 3[1952] 2 QB 795 4Andrew Burrows,A casebook on contract(Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013).
2|P a g e The acceptance must be free from any condition, and it must be given for all the terms of the offer in order to constitute as valid as given inHyde v Wrench5case. Consideration is another key element of a valid contract. It is referred to the price for which the promise of another party is brought which makes the contract legally enforceable. It is the bargain of the contract in which one party’s gain is another party’s detriment. Consideration must be present in all simple contracts, and it must not be vague or illusionary as given inWhite v Bluett6case.7The consideration must be sufficient in the eyes of the law as given in the case ofHercules Motors Pty Ltd v Schubert8. Application Inthegivenscenario,ChunkyChickenhasimplementedaself-servicefacilityforits customers where they can select what they want to order by clicking on the image or icon of the product. The display of these products are not a valid offer, instead, they are invitation to treat. As discussed in PharmaceuticalSociety of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltdcase, the items which are displayed by the show on the shelf are not considered as available for sale. Similarly, showing the items of the display is not a valid offer; instead, it is an invitation to treat. The customers who wanted to purchase something can make an offer by clicking on the screen to place their order. Rachel made an offer to purchase the new gourmet chunkier chicken burger and hand cut chips in the screen, and this offer was accepted by ChunkyChicken when a printed ticket was issued immediately in which an order number and price is given which matched the terms of the offer made by Rachel (Hyde v Wrench). However, a valid contract has not formed between the parties at the movement because the element of consideration is missing which is a key element to form a valid contract. The consideration is paid by Rachael to the cashier when she paid $17.50 for the burger. The consideration paid by her was not vague or illusionary, and it was sufficient for the product purchased by Rachel, hence, it was a valid consideration (White v Bluett). The consideration paid by Rachel for the burger was sufficient in the eyes of the law (Hercules Motors Pty Ltd v Schubert). Thus, a contract is formed between Rachel and ChunkyChicken when a payment 5(1840) 49 ER 132 6(1853) 23 LJ 23 Ex 7Chris Monaghan and Nicola Monaghan,Beginning Contract Law(Routledge, 2013). 8(1953) 53 SR (NSW) 301
3|P a g e of $17.50 was made by Rachel to the cashier after which all the necessary elements which are necessary to form a contract were present. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that a valid contract has formed between Rachel and ChunkyChicken because all the essential elements of a contract were present.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4|P a g e Part B Issue Whether ChunkyChicken can rely on the clause included in the electronic terms and conditions in order to avoid liability towards Rachael? Law The terms which are included in a valid contract are enforceable on its parties. It means that the victim party can enforce the contractual terms on another contractual party if they are not complying with such terms. In case the contractual terms are not fulfilled by the party, then the aggrieved party has the right to hold the breaching party liable for such violation. The victim has the option to enforce the terms on another party or demand damages for the loss suffered by the aggrieved party. However, this liability can be eliminated by the party by including an exclusion clause in the contract. The exclusion clause or unfair term is referred to a contractual term that seeks to either completely eliminate or limit the liability of a party which arise based on the breach of the contract.9As per the rule of exclusion clause, if a party signs a contract, then they are bound by all of its terms. This rule was given in L’Estrange v Graucob Ltd10case which applies whether or not the party has read or understood the term or not which is known as the signature rule. In the case of unsigned documents, the court relies on two tests to determine whether an exclusion clause is valid to ensure that it did not violate the right of customers. The first test is nature of the document which is an objective test which evaluates whether a reasonable person would expect the contract to contain such term as given inChapelton v Barry Urban District Council11case. The reasonable notice test provided that the party must take reasonable steps to bind the clause into the notice of the customer while the contract is being formed as given in case.12Thus, clause hidden on the back of pillar in the car parking is not considered as valid in the case ofThornton v Shoe Lane Parking Co13. TheCompetition 9Ewan McKendrick and Qiao Liu,Contract Law: Australian Edition(Macmillan International Higher Education, 2015). 10(1934) 2 KB 394 11[1940] 1 KB 532 12Carron Ann Russell,Opinion in Contract Law(Routledge, 2012). 13[1971] 4 CLR 379
5|P a g e and Consumer Act201014gives the definition of a consumer under section 3. Section 3 (1) provided that a consumer is referred to such person who purchases any good for personal, domestic or household consumption and the payment about did not exceed $40,000. Section 24 of the act defines unfair as a term which causes imbalance between contractual parties’ rights and obligations and it did not protect their legitimate interest. Section 26 provides that unfair terms in consumer contracts are considered ineffective.15 Rule In the given scenario, the electronic terms and conditions contained the exclusion clause based on which ChunkyChicken wanted to eliminate its liability towards Rachael. The contract formed between parties was an unsigned document, thus, the validity of the term can be determined by two tests. Based on the first test, it was not reasonable to include such term in the contract because it violates customers’ rights (Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council). Based on second test, reasonable steps were not taken by ChunkyChicken to bring the term into the attention of Rachael. It was also not included when the contract was formed between the parties which were at the time when Rachael paid for the food (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Co). Moreover, Rachael is a consumer as per the definition given under section 3 of the Australian Consumer Law. Thus, the term included by ChunkyChicken which violates her right is considered as ineffective as per the provision gave under section 26 of the act. Conclusion In conclusion, ChunkyChicken cannot rely on the defence of the exclusion clause because it was not valid and Rachael has right under the Australian Consumer Law to receive compensation from ChunkyChicken. 14Competition and Consumer Act2010 (Cth) 15Austlii,CompetitionandConsumerAct2010(2018)< http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/toc-sch2.html>.
6|P a g e Bibliography AArticles/Books/Reports Burrows, Andrew,A casebook on contract(Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013). McKendrick, Ewan and Liu, Qiao,Contract Law: Australian Edition(Macmillan International Higher Education, 2015). Monaghan, Chris and Monaghan, Nicola,Beginning Contract Law(Routledge, 2013). Parker, David and Box, Gerald,Business law for business students(Lawbook Co., 2013). Russell, Carron Ann,Opinion in Contract Law(Routledge, 2012). BCases Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council[1940] 1 KB 532 Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn(1910) 10 CLR 674 Hercules Motors Pty Ltd v Schubert(1953) 53 SR (NSW) 301 Hyde v Wrench(1840) 49 ER 132 L’Estrange v Graucob Ltd(1934) 2 KB 394 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd[1952] 2 QB 795 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Co[1971] 4 CLR 379 White v Bluett(1853) 23 LJ 23 Ex CLegislation Competition and Consumer Act2010 (Cth) DOthers
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.