Business Law | Assignment Sample

Business law

Table of Contents
Issue:................................................................................................................................................5
Rules:...............................................................................................................................................5
Application:.....................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9
4

Issue:
 Is offer displayed by Lucci’s is invitation to treat or offer?
 Is there is an acceptance and can Joshua purchase shoes for £90.
 Is there an intention to create legal relation exist between Joshua and his mother?
 Can he legally bind his mother to pay the promised amount?
 Is the Gym 24/7 established a unilateral contract?
 Is Joshua is eligible for three month of free membership at the Gym.
Rules:
Invitation to treat:
For an offer to be distinguished from an innovation to treat there are certain requirement.
The major difference is that an invitation to treat does not lead to creation of binding contract
where an offer can lead to it.
Good displayed in the shops: generally the good displayed on the shops for sales are not offer
but an invitation to treat. The customers make an offer to purchase the good. The seller decides
whether to accept the offer or not (Talaat, 2019). The fact was also established in the case of
Fisher v Bell in 1961 where the defended had a knife displayed in the shop window with a price
tag on it. In the law made that it is a criminal offence to offer such product, but held that good
displayed in the shops are not offer but mere invitation to treat in technical terms.
Promises made under personal relation:
The promises made out of personal relation where someone promises to do something
without considering the implication of their promise (Contractual agreement - offer and
acceptance, 2018). A promise made in the conversation with on intention to create legal relation
is highly unlikely to be enforceable by the law. The personal relation here can be defined as
promises made with parents, children, friends, relatives, a known person etc. A promise made by
or to a person under such relation with no legal contract can be enforced in the courts.
5

Promissory estopell: concept occurs for the situation where a person have genuinely and
honestly belief that they have entered into some sort of contract due to the promise made by
other party (Andrews, 2016). The promissory estopell is enforced by the court when there is a
detrimental reliance. This means the party to whom promise is made must rely on the word or
conduct to such extent that they acted upon the reliance in some way.
Unilateral offer:
A unilateral offer occurs in the situations where one party who is the offeror promises to pay for
the performance of another. This is a conditional promise and its acceptance takes place where
the offeree performs there act in the specific way and when the offeree performs the act as
designed by the offeror, the latter cannot reject it (Can a promise to create a contract to legally
bind all parties?, 2018). The advertisement made with such conditional promises is unilateral
offer sand there exist an intention to creation of binding agreement on the part of offeror. In the
modern rule a unilateral contract cannot be revoked once the performance has begun.
Application:
For the case of Lucci’s and Joshua it can be stated that the shoes displayed with the
prices tag was an invitation to treat and not an offer. With seeing the prices tag of £90 on the
shoes Joshua merely made an offer to purchase the product at displayed prices but it is not the
discretion of the seller to accept the offer. In this case the store refused to accept the offer made
by Joshua to purchased goods at £90. As per the provision of the contract law the invitation to
treat does not create a legal relation and do not have binding effects on any of the party.
For the scenario between Joshua and his mother, with application of the rules it can be
stated that there exist a personal relation between both them and mother and child and it is not
enforceable by law untilled there is intention to create legal intention (Cartwright, 2016). With
the application of rules of promissory estopell it is identified that Joshua had a detrimental
reliance on the words of her mother of paying him the tuition fees. For the same he reacted in
way of going to the college his mother promised to pay fees for. Also the court takes legal action
under the promissory estopell rules when there exist detrimental reliance and on that a significant
action is also taken.
6

For the case of Joshua and Gym 24/7 there it can be stated that the gym made a unilateral
offer through advertisement which was offers to the general public. This is unilateral offer on
the condition that it offer to pay three month free membership in the Gym by completing a
challenges which is the condition of unilateral contract that is a conditional promise.
The Gym published it with having a intention to create binding agreement. In the
advertisement the Gym clearly included the exact time, date and condition to complete the
challenge. People can clearly identify by looming at the advertisement that the Gym has serious
intention of creating a binding agreement with the person who completes the challenge.
Conclusion
For the given scenario and dispute between Lucci’s and Joshua it can be concludes that
the display of goods by the Lucci’s was not an offer to sale rather it was an invitation to treat
where Joshua made an offer to purchase the shoes for £90 and the store rejected the offer. For
invitation to treat there is no legal binding effect on the store to fulfill the wish of the consumers
as what is offered by them. So Joshua cannot force the Lucci’s to sale the shoes to him at £90.
He also do not have a legal back to make the invitation to treat make legally binding on Lucci’s
as same is not available in the cases of invitation to treat.
For the case of Joshua and his mother it can be started that there was no legal contract
between both of them, it was promise made by her mother to pay the college fees of Joshua
which she told if he goes there she will pay whole fees. Both of them had no intention to create
legal obligation as the promise was made under personal relation and there is no one intented to
create legal obligation under such circumstances (Smits, 2017.). In this case Joshua can take a
legal action his mother by application of the rules of promissory estopell. He can prove that after
the promise made by her only he took admission in the college as he himself is not able to pay
such a huge amount of money. Here existed detrimental reliance on the part of Joshua as the
action upon the promise made his mother by taking admission in the college. The court here can
enforce the promise made by Joshua’s mother.
For the lase case scenario it can be stated that the offer advertisement made by the Gym
24/7 was a unilateral offer. This is determined by the fact that it made a conditional promise of
7

three month free subscription to first 10 people who complete the 20 press up challenge in 60
seconds on 1st January. Moreover, Joshua completes the challenge on stipulated date and time
and as per the terms and condition mentioned in the advertisement that is unilateral offer. In this
case the performance has been completed by Joshua so the Gym 24/7 cannot revoke the promise.
Hence Joshua is eligible to get three month free subscription in Gym 24/7
8

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Andrews, N., 2016. Sources and General Principles of English Contract Law. In Arbitration and
Contract Law. (pp. 165-175). Springer, Cham.
Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil
lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Smits, J. M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Talaat, W. I. W., 2019. The Present Parameters of Promissory Estoppel and Its Changing Role
in the English, Australian and Malaysian Contract Law. Journal of Malaysian and
Comparative Law.35. pp.39-88.
Online
Can a promise to create a contract to legally bind all parties?. 2018. [Online]. Available
through :< https://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/promise-to-create-contract/>.
Contractual agreement - offer and acceptance. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance4.php>.
9