CO5119 Business Law Assignment
Added on 2020-02-24
8 Pages1663 Words42 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness lawName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
1BUSINESS LAW(a)Issue:The issue of the case is whether there is any provision in law that can identify thefamily relationship to create implications in case of any binding agreement or not.Relevant laws:The present case is based on the law regarding the offer and acceptance. Contract is aagreement binding by law. Agreement is a process by which one person promises to do or notto do anything. All legal agreements are binding in nature. In a valid contract, agreement isimportant. In agreement, there is a provision regarding the offer and acceptance. Offer andacceptance are the essentials of a contract. When a person proposes to do certain things toother person, he makes an offer to the person. When the person, to whom the offer is created,accepts the same, it becomes acceptance to the contract. Therefore, offer and acceptance arethe two main provisions of contract. In Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball [1892], it was held thatan unilateral offer can be accepted by performing the terms of the offer. Under the AustralianContract Act, except offer and acceptance, there need to be certain more essentials to bepresent to make a contract legal. The primary object of the contract is to bind by legal relationship. It is mentionedunder the law that when an offer is accepted, it makes an agreement, but not a contract.therefore, it can be stated that the primary object of the contract can be offer and acceptance,but there are certain other essentials to be followed up regarding the same. Meeting of mindis another essential regarding the contract. In Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, theprinciple of legal binding has been followed up. Therefore, it can be stated that the intentionto create legal relation is one of the major requirements regarding the commencement of
2BUSINESS LAWcontract. It is the rule that if both the parties are not agreed to the terms of the contract, itcannot be valid in nature. In Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, it was held thatmere silence cannot be termed as an acceptance. This case made an exception to the basicrule of acceptance. However, it is the duty of the person to whom offer is made to deny theoffer expressly. Application:In the present case, Uncle Peter has made an offer to his nephew Brett regarding a car.The offer has been made by way of letter. However, the postal rule will not applicable here asPeter must let his nephew about the offer. In this case, it has been observed that Brett had notaccepted the offer and the postal rule regarding an offer is valid when the offer is accepted. It was deemed by Peter that if Brett had not reply back until Friday, the offer wouldbe accepted by silence. However, the said offer should have to be come into the knowledge ofthe intended person. Within family, there can be an agreement and the principle is followed up in Balfour vBalfour. It has been observed in the case that contract can be done if there is an intention tobind them legally. In this case, it is clear from the statement of peter that he wanted to make acontract with his nephew and did not want to bestow the car upon him. Therefore, it can bestated that Peter wanted to bind in a legal relationship. Conclusion:Therefore, it can be stated that if there is a clarification regarding the intention of theparties to be legally banded, binding agreement can be done within the members of thefamily.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Contract law Name of the universitylg...
|9
|1806
|148
Bindley Business Law - Assignmentlg...
|7
|3472
|88
Business and Corporation Law : Assignment (Doc)lg...
|14
|3543
|44
Can Donald Cruisers take any action against Donald for non-compliance of the offer?lg...
|11
|3386
|444
Legal Position and Remedies in Contract Lawlg...
|10
|2374
|318
Laws on Commercial Relations : Reportlg...
|6
|1378
|310