Business Law and Corporate Law -

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
Answer 3.1
Parties
In this given scenario the parties are:
 Plaintiff- Emily
 Defendant- Maggie
Issue
In this paper, the issue to be discussed is:
 Whether Emily has a contract with Maggie;
 Whether Maggie is bound to sell her van to Emily.
Rule
A contract is regarded to be as an arrangement made between two or more parties either
persons or establishments, with the intention of form common and legally binding obligations
(O'Sullivan, 2018). A valid contract must consist of the following elements, such as:
 Offer;
 Acceptance;
 Intention to form legitimate relation; and
 Consideration.
On the other hand, in Fisher vs. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 case the court held that where any
product has been displayed with a price tag, such display is considered to be an invitation to treat
by the seller and not an offer.

2BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
In Masters vs. Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 case the court held that a counteroffer ends
the original offer and the contract will not be enforceable unless specifically agreed requirements
are completed by the parties.
In case of acceptance by electronic means, acceptance becomes complete when the
communication reaches to the system of the offeror (Murray, 2000). In Felthouse vs. Bindly
(1862) 11 CBNS 869 case the court held that silence cannot be considered as acceptance.
Analysis
In this given scenario a signboard has been given by Maggie regarding the sale of a
second-hand vehicle. The price was negotiated by Emily which was rejected by Maggie and she
gave another offer and no reply has been given by Emily. Thus, Maggie sold the vehicle to
another person at the negotiated price.
By applying the rule of Fisher vs. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 case it can be said that the
signboard given by Maggie is an invitation to treat.
By applying the rule of Masters vs. Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 case it can be said
that the original offer ends with the counteroffer and the contract will not be enforceable unless
specifically agreed requirements are completed by the parties.
By applying the rule of Felthouse vs. Bindly (1862) 11 CBNS 869 case it can be said
that Emily was silent when the counteroffer has been made to her.
Conclusion
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be said that no contract has been made between
Maggie and Emily and Maggie is not bound to sell the van to Emily.

3BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
Reference
Murray, A.D., 2000. Entering into contracts electronically: the real WWW. Law and the
Internet: A framework for Electronic Commerce, pp.19-20.
O'Sullivan, J., 2018. O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.