Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 10 pages
Running Head: Law 1Law
Law2Part AIssue: Whether contract exists between Lame Duck restaurant and Marie?Law: The first and most important element of valid contract is agreement which includes offer and acceptance, and it also involves meeting of the minds or consensus between the parties entered into contract. Offer- for the purpose of constituting offer there is no particular form, and it is considered as communication under which one party promise to do something or not does something if other party to whom such offer is gives to does something or refrains from doing something. Offer can be made to the world at large. This can be understood through case law Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Court of Appeal  1 QB 256;  EWCA Civ 11. Acceptance- Acceptance is considered as unequivocal statement by the person to whom offer is directed for the purpose agreeing the offer. Consideration- consideration is considered as price which is asked by the promisor in exchange of their promise. In other words, it is price for promise. Intention to create legal relations- when parties entered into contract it is necessary that they intended to create legal relations. Presence of consideration is considered as valid proof that parties intend to create legal relations2. Application- in the present case, Marie accepts the offer made by Lame Duck restaurant given by way of Quotation. In this case, all the essential elements of valid contract are present and boththe parties intended to create legal relations.Conclusion- Therefore, there is valid contract exists between the parties.1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Court of Appeal  1 QB 256;  EWCA Civ 1. 2 ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html>, Accessed on 16thSeptember 2017.
Law3Part BIssue- Whether contract between Lame duck restaurant and Marie is affected by Mistake?Law- mistake is considered as complex area of contract law. Generally, parties cannot rescind orrectify the contract on the ground of being mistaken at some aspect of contract. no matter even that mistake is fundamental in nature. Unilateral mistake is occurred when only one party at the contract is being mistaken about any element of the contract, but other party is not. Usually, common law does not provide any remedy for unilateral mistake. Equity provides remedy for unilateral mistake, but condition is applicable that other party who is not mistaken must conduct some improper action. In other words, unmistaken party must engaged in some improper conduct such as, it prevents the other party to be aware of the mistake. If any misleading conduct is involved on the part of unmistakenparty, then equity provides superior remedies. In normal cases in which actionable mistakes exists equity provides remedy of rescission or rectification3. Application- in the present case, Lame Duck restaurant send wrong quotation to the Marie which was accepted by the Marie. In this case, Lame duck entered into contract on the basis of unilateral mistake. In this Lame Duck is mistaken to the fundamental term of the nature. In some cases party is taken at fundamental terms of the contract such as price or subject matter. It was decided in case Smith v Hughes4, that contract exists because both the parties intended to buy or sell the oats but the consensus on the age of parties was not match. This case does not provide proper result. This topic was also decided in case Taylor v Johnson5, Court held any 3 ACL, Mistake, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/avoidance-mistake.html>, accessed on 16thSeptember 2017. 4 Smith v Hughes, Court of Queen's Bench  LR 6 QB 597. 5 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422.
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview Upload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss