This document provides an analysis of the elements required for a valid contract, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and meeting of the minds. It also discusses the remedies available to the buyer in case of breach of contract. Case laws are cited to support the analysis.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: BUSINESS LAW Business Law Name of the Student Name of the University Author Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1BUSINESS LAW Issue 1 Whether any claim has been accrued to the buyer against the seller. Whether the seller can seek resort under any defences. Whether the buyer has a possibility of succeeding. Rule There are certain elements that are required to be established while claiming a contract to be valid. A valid contract that has been constructed consisting of all the elements necessary essentials will bind the parties to the contract towards the terms of the contract and will mandate them to perform the contract. This can be illustrated with the case of Amev-Udc Finance Ltd v Austin [1986] HCA 63, (1986) 162 CLR 170. In this furtherance, it can be stated that the contract is required to be constructed with the help of an agreement that has been created with an offer moving from one party to the contract towards the another, which has been duly accepted by the other party. This requires a genuine offer that has been communicated to the offeree in certain and undisputed language. This comes in line with the case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20. Any invitation to treat is to be considered as the request to negotiate an agreement or a contract and the same cannot be treated as an valid offer. This can be made evident with the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 6. Again, the making of an offer is not adequate for the formation of a valid contract, the acceptance of the same is also mandatory for a valid contract. The same can be illustrated with the case of Robophone Facilities Ltd v. Blank [1966] 3 All E.R. 128. The acceptance needs a communication to the party making the offer. The acceptance is also needed to be absolute and precisely directed towards the terms of the offer. The same can be illustrated with the case of Lucy v Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516.
2BUSINESS LAW The concept of the parties regarding the requisites of the contract needs to be identical. Under the common law this is termed as meeting of the minds. This can be illustrated with the case of Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1879) LR 4 Ex D 216. The contract needs to accrue consideration for both the parties involved. It can be construed as a monetary consideration as well as any other form of consideration. This can be illustrated with the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329. There are certain contracts, which are collateral with respect to the main contract and can require a party to keep an offer validly open till a particular period with an extra charge of consideration. This is termed as an option contract and can be best explained with the case of Cook v. Coldwell Banker/ Frank Laiben Realty Co. 967 S.W.2d 654. Application In the instant situation, there has been a sign of ‘for sale’ put for advertising the sale of a courier van. This is an invitation to treat as it is a request to negotiate an agreement or a contract and the same cannot be treated as a valid offer. This can be made evident with the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 6. The buyer called the seller and made an offer to purchase the car. This can be treated as a valid offer as under the principles of the case of Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20. However, the seller has made an option contract to keep the offer open for a certain period. This can be explained with the case of Cook v. Coldwell Banker/ Frank Laiben Realty Co. 967 S.W.2d 654. However, the seller has sold the van to some other buyer who has been offering a higher price. This can be construed as the breach of the option contract. However, the seller has the defence of not using the cheque. But this defence will not hold good.
3BUSINESS LAW Conclusion A claim has been accrued to the buyer against the seller. The seller can seek resort under any defences. The buyer has a possibility of succeeding. Issue 2 Whether any remedy is available to the buyer based upon the assumption that the buyer has succeeded. Rule A breach of the contract can bring a claim for damages towards the aggrieved. The court in determining the quantum of damages will rely upon the guideline that what would the position of the aggrieved have been if the breach did not existed and the court will award damages with respect to the amount that has been lost. This can be explained with the case of The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Oljefabrika [1949] AC 196. Application In the instant case, the buyer will be awarded with the same damages as would have been accrued to him in the absence of the breach. This can be further supported with the case of The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Oljefabrika [1949] AC 196. Conclusion A remedy is available to the buyer based upon the assumption that the buyer has succeeded.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4BUSINESS LAW Reference Amev-Udc Finance Ltd v Austin [1986] HCA 63, (1986) 162 CLR 170 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329 Cook v. Coldwell Banker/ Frank Laiben Realty Co. 967 S.W.2d 654 Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 6 Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1879) LR 4 Ex D 216 Lucy v Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516 Robophone Facilities Ltd v. Blank [1966] 3 All E.R. 128 The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Oljefabrika [1949] AC 196