logo

Fundamentals of Law - Assignment

   

Added on  2021-06-17

9 Pages2295 Words53 Views
 | 
 | 
 | 
Running head: FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWFundamentals of LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor note
Fundamentals of Law - Assignment_1

1FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWA (Contract)Issue:The issues that can be identified in the given scenario are:Whether Annie is entitled to take legal action to recover the money spent by her to acquirethe disksWhether Desert Discs have any defenses against the claims of AnnieRuleIt can be stated that in order for a promise to be regarded as an offer, the offeror mustestablish that he intended to be bound by the offer as held in the case of Harvey vFacey[1893] UKPC 1. However, it is to be mentioned that an offer is to be distinguishedfrom an invitation to treat. It is worth noting that subsequent to acceptance of an offer a validcontract is formed between the parties. However, an invitation to treat cannot be accepted.Goods on display in shops are not to be regarded as offers but mere invitation to treat as heldin the case of Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394. Advertisements are generally treated asinvitation to treat. This can be substantiated by the judgment of the Partridge v Critenden(1968) 2 All ER 425. However, there is an exception to the aforementioned rule. In someinstances advertisements can amount to offers as established in the remarkable case of Carlillv Carbolic Smoke Ball co [1893] 1 QB 256. In this case an advertisement had been given bythe Carbolic smokeball company that a reward of 100 pounds would be paid to anyone whocontracts influenza after using the smoke ball produced by them three times daily for twoweeks. Mrs. Carlil had purchased the smokeball and used it according to the instructions ofthe advertisement. However she c contracted influenza. Thereafter she claimed the 100pounds as per the terms of the advertisement. It was held by the court that Mrs Carlil was
Fundamentals of Law - Assignment_2

2FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWentitled to receive the 100 pounds as the advert constituted a unilateral offer which he hadaccepted by the performance of the terms of the offer. The court in this case rejected all thearguments of the defendant. It can be stated that party to a contract is entitled to claim damages if the terms of the contractare misrepresented. In the case Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177, it had been held that forproving misrepresentation of a terms of contract, the aggrieved party must establish that thecontract contained a false statement of fact or law. It is important for the misrepresentee toestablish that the he relied on such representation and entered into the contract subsequentlyby being induced by the terms contained in misrepresentation as held in the case of Horsfallv Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90. As held in the case Derry v Peek (1889) 5 T.L.R. 625misrepresentations can be fraudulent if the misrepresentor produced a statement:Knowing it to be falseWithout believing it t be trueRecklessly, careless to assess whether the statement produced was true or falseNegligent misrepresentation can be termed as representation of a statement withoutreasonable grounds to believe that such representation is true as held in the case HowardMarine v Ogden [1978] QB 574. Misrepresentation can also be categorized as wholly innocent misrepresentation if it isestablished that representor had reasonable grounds to believe that the representation wastrue. In case of fraudulent misrepresentation the misrepresentee is entitled to receive damagesor rescind the contract as held in the case of Doyle v Olby[1969] 2 QB 158. In case ofnegligent misrepresentation same remedies are available as if it were made fraudulently as
Fundamentals of Law - Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Case Study Offer and Acceptance
|3
|383
|15

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
|7
|1296
|120

(Sample) Business Law: Assignment
|7
|1317
|55

Liability of Ming and Types of Company - Business and Corporations Law
|8
|2447
|243

Legal Issues in Hairlines Advertisement
|8
|2543
|50

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Case Study
|6
|1117
|49