Consumer Disclosure & Misleading Practices
Added on 2020-04-07
11 Pages2709 Words47 Views
|
|
|
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness lawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1BUSINESS LAWQuestion 1Issue (a)The issue in hand is to discuss whether the parties have enter into a contract or not.RuleFor a contract’s completion, valid acceptance is needed. In normal cases, communication mightbe only natural way to proceed, though in such cases, even letters are preferable. As stated in theAdam v Lindsell case, it can be said that a letter of acceptance when posted by the offeree, tendsto act as a valid acceptance and hence, completes the said process, not matter whether the letterhas reached the offeror or not, this may include theft, misguidance and other problems.Hence, considering what’s stated above, it can included into it that a contract is a form ofagreement that is ratified by the court of law as legal, which binds the said parties in thecontractual terms and conditions. The validity of a contract is based on whether it contains thefollowing features:1. An offer2. Acceptance3. A consideration4. Any legal intentions5. Capacity6. CertaintyAs discussed previously, a contract cannot be done without having an offer and a nature1. Theperson making the contract (Offeror) must make sure that its terms and conditions are acceptedby the person accepting the contract (Offeree) in all legality and acceptance of the court. If new1 Coteanu, Cristina. Cyber consumer law and unfair trading practices. Routledge, 2017.
2BUSINESS LAWterms are made, then such ‘Counter-Offers’ dissolves the validity of the previous terms and newones replace them.When compared to the letters, there are no particular laws for the use of modern Medias ofcommunication like the email and websites. Though the messages might reach swiftly, theresponse time may lag or vary2. Hence, because of this issue related to the said timing of theresponse, mails are counted out, but websites providing instantaneous conversation services canbe considered as a nice medium.In the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], considering the advancement inthe tech word, the court concluded that letters are no longer modes of instantaneouscommunication since, in their case, it has to be either offerer sending the offer to the offeror andthen the offeror responding to them via a letter. The communication is stated incomplete if theofferee doesn’t post a letter and hence, the contract remains unfulfilled. Hence, it is necessary forthe law to recognize the importance of the now modern ways tools that make communication alot smarter than before. The case of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte ltd [2005] SGCA 2 made it quite clearthat email doesn’t only lead to occasional delaying in the communication process, but themessages sometimes remain unsent. It was stated that postal communication is the mostconvenient of all sources since the offeree and the offeror can rely on the postal rules, and assoon as the offeree sends his acceptance via the post, the contract becomes valid. If considering itthis way, it can also be said that the in emails, the communication process in uncontrollable andthe basis of it lies on a single click.Application2 McKendrick, Ewan. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014
3BUSINESS LAWThe case deals with the discussion of Mary and Lianne about organizing a party via email. Theexpenses were briefly overviewed by the two when Mary states that the expenses should beresolved with $10000, to which Lianne requested a drop of the rate to $9500. Mary agreed to itgranted her conditions are met, which were 10% deposits of the amount in 7 days. The wholeconversation was made on the 10th of June. The originally stated amount of $10000 wasrewritten to the newly agreed amount of $9500.Whenever in a contract a time period is provided, it is required by the offeree to workaccordingly and pay the required amount in the way stated3. In the given case Lianne was todeposit a sum of $9500 in 10% installments in 7 days, which she failed to keep up with. So, sincethe contract wasn’t upheld, on the 20th of June, the new contract of $9500 was dissolved makingthe old one of $10000 valid again, to which Mary shows her acceptance via an email.As discussed before, email can be considered an instantaneous way of communication not fallinginto any legislation whatsoever since all postal rules of recipient and dispatch are inapplicable inthese given circumstances. The postal rules clearly state that after the dispatch of a saidacceptance, the letter still remains the property of the offeree or the offeror4. But, as discussedearlier, an email is only subjected to a single click of a button, hence the message can be said tohave been beyond the reach of the sender. Same can be said when Lianne mailed an acceptancemail to Mary, accepting the contract of $10000. Hence, their contract is bound and can beconsidered valid in all form.Though, it was seen that after 30mins of confirmation, Mary decided to revoke the offer, thoughit cannot be possible because an offer cannot be revoked if the acceptance of revocation doesn’tarrive before the acceptance of confirmation to the offeror.3Hunter, Howard. "Modern Law of Contracts." (2017).4Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Consumer Protection Laws in Australialg...
|16
|3252
|111
Legal Advice for Robert in Business Lawlg...
|13
|4068
|137
Application of Postal Rule in Business & Contract Legal Studieslg...
|8
|2319
|345
Contract Law and Modern Communicationlg...
|10
|2432
|67
Business Lawlg...
|8
|2269
|2
Legal Advice on Refusal to Take Wheatlg...
|5
|1347
|31