Enforceable Contract between Simon and Julie

Law
[DATE]

Question 1
Issue
The aim is to find whether an enforceable contract has been enacted between Simon and Julie
considering that Simon has sent the acceptance for the offer through different mode of
communication.
Rule
‘Acceptance’
Valid agreement is one of the main requirements for an enforceable contract enactment.
Valid offer by offeror and valid acceptance by the offeree are the main essentials of an
agreement. However, the enforceability of acceptance for contract enactment is mainly
dependent on the type of communication mode used by offeree. According to postal rule,
when the offeree has sent his/her acceptance through post, then the acceptance gets enforced
at the time of posting and contract would get enacted1. However, when electronic mode is
used, then the acceptance becomes enforceable only when the SMS, Mail, Fax, Telex is
received by the offeror as evident from Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation2. Also, the
offeree can use any method for communicating the acceptance to the offeror unless
specifically mentioned by offeror as evident from Yates Building Co. Ltd v RJ Pulleyn & Son
(York) Ltd3 case. The offeror cannot revoke the extended offer once the offer gets accepted by
offeree.
Application
Julie has extended an offer to Simon via mail about the quotation amount for her traffic
management service for the February month. She highlights that if Simon was ready to take
the service for the quoted amount then he must inform her back before the weekend.
However, she does not specify about the mode of conveying the acceptance. Simon finds that
her quote amount is lowest and hence, he decides to avail the service. Thereby, he sends a
SMS to Julie regarding his acceptance for the offer. Further, Julie informs him about offer
revocation to Simon. It is apparent that Simon has sent acceptance to Julie before revocation
of the offer and thus, the acceptance would be considered as valid. Further, she has not
1 Andrews Neil, Contract Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2015, 3rd edition) 201
2 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3
3Yates Building Co. Ltd v RJ Pulleyn & Son (York) Ltd (1975) 237 EG 183
1

mentioned the mode of communication for acceptance and hence, acceptance through SMS
which was successful received by Julie’s phone would enforce acceptance. Thus, Julie and
Simon have enacted a legally binding contract.
Conclusion
Simon has sent legally valid acceptance to Julie within the specified time frame and hence,
Simon and Julie would be bound with an enforceable contract.
Question 2
Issue
The aim is to find whether an enforceable contract has been formed between Peter and Julie
considering the presence of valid consideration for a fundraiser job and the intention of the
parties to form legal relationship.
Rule
‘Consideration’
Consideration is something of value which the contracting parties would get in return for
fulfilling the promise. It can be any act, money, object, favour or so forth but it is essential
that both the parties must have some consideration which must be mutually agreed4. If there
is no consideration present for either of the parties, then no contract would be formed
between them. Also, the consideration adequacy is not necessary for contract formation
which means any mutually agreed subjective option would be termed as valid consideration
as evident from Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd5.
‘Intention’
In the cases where parties are linked with domestic relations, the intention to enter into legal
relation must be determined as described in the verdict of Jones v Padavatton6 case. Further,
if the contracting parties are not connected via family (domestic) relationship then the
4 Andy Gibson and Douglas Fraser, Business Law, (Pearson Publications,2014, 8th edition) 117
5Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1
6Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4
2