Business Law Assignment

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1
Table of Contents
PART A-OPTION 1.......................................................................................................2
Issue..........................................................................................................................2
Law............................................................................................................................2
Application.................................................................................................................3
Conclusion................................................................................................................3
PART B-OPTION B......................................................................................................4
Issue..........................................................................................................................4
Application.................................................................................................................5
Conclusion................................................................................................................6
Reference.....................................................................................................................7

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT2
PART A-OPTION 1
Issue
(a) The first issue in this scenario is whether SOO Burgers is responsible to
be providing Mickey with the car Mazda CX-9s claimed by him under the
contract law.
(b) The second issue in this scenario is whether SOO Burgers is responsible
to be providing Brett with the car Mazda CX-9s claimed by him under the
contract law.
Law
(a) Mickey
In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] it was held by the judges in the court that the
advertisements which are seen as being published in newspapers or any other form
of media should always be considered to be ‘invitation to offer’ and not actual offer.
Following this judgment it can be seen that an individual who has published an
advertisement is not legally bound for following the advertisement.
According to the decision of the judges in landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company [1893] an advertisement which can be seen as containing any
kind of term for rewards is required for being treated as an offer that is binding
towards the offeror for any individual accepting the offer. The judgment of the case
provides the description of an offer to be proposal given by one of the parties for any
specific arrangement to the other party and when the party to whom the offer is
made is seen to be making the declaration of acceptance of the offer in written or
oral way it is called acceptance to the offer.
The judgment of the court in the case Byrne v Van Tienhoven & Co. [1880]
held that the revocation of an offer is required to be made before the offer has been
accepted and the notice for the revocation is needed to be communicated to the
offeree in a direct and indirect way.
In case of Dickinson v Dodds [1876] the judges held that the revocation of any
offer is not necessary for being communicated by the individual making the offer to
the offeree in a personal or direct manner.
(b) Brett
In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] it was held by the judges in the court that the
advertisements which are seen as being published in newspapers or any other form
of media should always be considered to be ‘invitation to offer’ and not actual offer.
According to the decision of the judges in landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball an advertisement which can be seen as containing any kind of term for
rewards is required for being treated as an offer that is binding towards the offeror for
any individual accepting the offer.
According to the judgment of the case Appleby v Johnson [1874] a contract is
only seen as forming between the two parties when the offeree accepts the offer in
oral or written terms.