The High Court Law Students

LAW 6501
CONTRACT LAW
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

Question 1
Issue
The broad issue is to determine if there is a valid contract between “Hopeful” and “TTT”.
The specific issue in this regards is to determine if valid acceptance of the offer was present
on part of “Hopeful” or not.
Rule
With regards to formation of a legally enforceable contract, it is essential that a valid
agreement needs to be present. An agreement has two key aspects namely offer and
acceptance. An offer is made by an offeror to the offeree. In response, the offeree may give
acceptance, rejection or present a counter offer. With regards to acceptance, a vital aspect is
the communication of the acceptance to the offeror. Even though the offeree may have
intention to accept the offer but till the time, it is not communicated to the offeror using the
appropriate means of communication, one cannot conclude that valid acceptance to the offer
has been given. One relevant case in this regards is Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB
327. This case indicates the importance of communication in acceptance especially in the
context of electronic communication (James et. al., 2019).
Application
In the given scenario, there is existence of a valid offer where TTT representative offered to
sell 100 cartons of their product at $ 100. To this offer, Hope replies that he is very impressed
and happy with the offer and would send a email confirming his acceptance to the offer.
From this, it is evident that the communication of the acceptance for both parties would be
through an email which Hope would send. There is no acceptance of offer by Hope without
the official communication through email. Any reasonable bystander could agree to this
including the offeror. However, there was no email communication by Hope (offeree) with
regards to acceptance of offeror. Thus, there has been no valid communication of acceptance
in the given scenario. As a result, no valid contract is formed between “Hopeful” and “TTT”.
Conclusion
Owing to lack of communication of acceptance from Hopeful, no valid agreement has been
formed. Thus, no legally enforceable contract exists between “Hopeful” and “TTT”.

Question 2
Issue
The broad issue to determine if whether there has been a breach of contract by PPP since it
supplied non-organic slim tea. The specific issue is to outline whether the quality of tea to be
supplied was a term or condition related to the contract.
Rule
With regards to representations made by the seller to lure the buyer into making contractual
relationship, it is necessary to understand that some of these may be terms while others are
mere representations. It is imperative to segregate the two as breach of a contractual term can
potentially lead to termination of contract besides damages being paid to the plaintiff. There
are various legal principles to determine whether an underlying representation is a term or
not. One of these is parole evidence rule. As per this, if there is a written contract between
parties, then the representations which are contained within the written agreement would be
considered as terms. This is because only important representations are captured in the
written document (James et. al., 2019).
Application
Based on the given scenario, it is evident that there was a written offer by PPP stating the
following.
“PPP Ltd located in Singapore is selling their good quality organic slim tea P50 at $180 per
100 cartons”
Hopeful accepted the above offer. It is evident that there is a written email exchange
regarding the same and hence this is a form of a written contract. The offer by PPP clearly
indicates that they would be supplying the P50 variant of tea to Hopeful. However, they
breached the contract when they started supplying an inferior variant i.e. P20 that too without
informing Hopeful. Clearly, this is a term of the contract considering its importance to the
overall acceptance by Hopeful. If the tea was not organic, Hopeful would have accepted the
offer. Also, on account of this breach, significant damage has been suffered by Hopeful in
terms of customer loss and financial loss. As a result, there is legal recourse available for
plaintiff (Hopeful) whereby it can terminate the contract with PPP and also claim legal
damages for the loss that has been actually suffered.