logo

Business and Company Law - Assignment

9 Pages2500 Words76 Views
   

Added on  2021-06-17

Business and Company Law - Assignment

   Added on 2021-06-17

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAWBUSINESS AND COMPANY LAWName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
Business and Company Law - Assignment_1
1BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAWQuestion 1Part (a)IssueThe issue here is to determine if a valid contract existed between Magda and Avinash.LawAustralian contract law embodies common law principles. As per common law a legallyvalid contract has the following elements (Hunter 2017):Offer and acceptance.Intention to create legal relationships.Consideration.Capacity to enter into the contract.Legitimacy of the terms of the contract.Under the given set of facts and circumstances determination of offer and acceptance isof utmost importance as that would form the basis of whether a contract existed between Magdaand Avinash.An offer is made by an offeror who solicits the acceptance for the same from an offereein exchange for a consideration. The judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co [1893] 1QB states that for a contract to be legally enforceable it must be established that the offerorintented to create legal relationships but an offer and an invitation to offer (Invitation to treat)would not be accepted as an offer (Llewellyn 2016). An advertisement such a shop’s window
Business and Company Law - Assignment_2
2BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAWdisplay would be considered as an invitation to treat and not an offer. Acceptance of the samewould not create legally valid relationships. This has been laid down in the judgment inPartridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER. A variation or a change in the terms of a legally validoffer would constitute a counter-offer and the same would then have to accepted by the originalofferor this has been laid down in the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 (McKendrickand Liu 2015). An enquiry or a clarification into an offer cannot constitute a lawfully valid offerand this has been adequately established in the judgment in Scammell & Nephew v. Ouston[1941] AC 251. It has also been determined that non-acceptance of an offer within an agreedupon stipulated time would lead to revocation of the offer this has been established in the caseRamsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109 (Hunt 2015).ApplicationIn the given set of facts and circumstances the advertisement on Magda’s websiteregarding the price of the portrait is an invitation to treat and does not constitute a lawfully validoffer. Thus following the judgment in Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER this would notconstitute a valid acceptance of an offer. Avinash’s subsequent email to Magda regarding thesame is a valid offer.Magda’s subsequent reply which raised the price of the portrait to $1800 is a lawfullyvalid offer. Thus, in effect following the judgment in Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 itwould be considered a counter thus negating Avinash’s original offer.Avinash agreed to accept this but varied the terms by stating he needed to consult withhis wife, thus forming another counter-offer. Another offer was made by Magda which stated atime for the acceptance and the price of the portrait. Thus the previous offer was negated.
Business and Company Law - Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Business Law Issues : Assignment
|10
|2318
|33

Sample Assignment on Bibliography PDF
|4
|995
|145

Law of Contract: Assignment
|9
|2537
|50

Contract Law: Validity of Consideration
|9
|2901
|313

Business Law: Contract Formation, Australian Consumer Law, and Rules of Consideration
|11
|2488
|305

Business Law: Validity of Contracts and Consumer Guarantees
|12
|2568
|198