Question 1 Issue The issue is to comment whether Simon and Julie have enacted a valid agreement for the job in February or not. Rule Legal offer and acceptance are considered to be the two main essential elements of an agreement. The offer would get enforceable for contract formation when it would have been receivedby the concernedofferee. However, thisaspect isnot necessary in case of acceptance and would be differ based on the type of communication used for conveying the acceptance. When instantaneous mode (electronic mode) such as email, SMS, calls, telex and fax would be used by the offeree then the acceptance would become enforceable only when the offeror’s device has received the acceptance1. The verdict ofEntores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation2case is the testimony of this as the acceptance sent by the offeree through instantaneous mode became enforceable and a contract was enacted between the parties. Also, it is imperative that the offeree accepts the offer before it gets revoked by the offeror. Further, it is noticeable that offeree can use any method to send his/her acceptance towards the offer unless the offeror has specified about the mode of communication as evident from verdict ofYates Building Co. Ltdv RJ Pulleyn& Son (York) Ltd3. Application Julie (offeror) has directed an offer to Simon (offeree) through email which contained the quotation amount for the job in February that had been inquired by Simon. Julie has also indicated that the offer would remain valid for acceptance until the week end. Simon also obtained quotation from other service providers and decided to take the service from Julie as her quote was lowest. He was worried that she would check the mails on weekends or not and hence, he used electronic mode of communication i.e. SMS and sent his acceptance for the offer. The SMS was successfully received by Julie. Based on the common law, it can be said the instant in which the SMS was successfully received by her, then only the acceptance gets enforceable and valid contract is enacted. Further, Julie has not specified the mode of conveying acceptance and thus, sending SMS would not impact the contract formation. 1Andy Gibson and Douglas Fraser,Business Law(Pearson Publications,2014, 8thedition ) 174 2Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation[1955]EWCA Civ 3 3Yates Building Co. Ltdv RJ Pulleyn& Son (York) Ltd(1975) 237 EG 183 1
Conclusion Simon and Julie would be bounded with a valid contract because the offer gets accepted before it being expired and thus, both the parties have to satisfied the contractual liabilities. Question 2 Issue The issue is to comment whether Peter and Julie have enacted a valid agreement for the job in the local fundraiser. The presence of consideration for the parties along with the intention to enter into legal contractual relation would also be discussed based on the given scenario. Rule Consideration for the contracting parties is another very essential element for a valid contract formation as no contract would be formed if the parties do not have valid consideration. However, the adequacy of consideration for the parties is not necessary. Further, the consideration for the parties must be mutually agreed based on their course of action and also, it should not be defined by the courts4. Anything which is agreed by the parties would be considered as valid consideration as evident from the verdict ofChappell & Co Ltd v Nestle CoLtd5casewhereachocolatewrapperwasconsideredasvalidconsiderationfor contractingpartiesandavalidagreementhadformedbetweenthembasedonthis consideration. Further, the intention to form legal contract needs to be proved only when the contracting parties are connected through domestic relations6. Application Peter and Julie are not related through domestic relationship which implies that both the parties have intention to create legal contractual relationship. Also, it can be seen that both the parties have valid consideration as Peter would obtain the traffic service for the fundraiser event and Julie would get an Ester goods hamper which is not proportional nor adequate. However, presence of adequate consideration is not necessary for contract formation and thus, a valid contract is formed between the parties. No family relationship is between the 4Shayne Davenport,Business and Law in Australia(Thomson Reuters, 2014, 5thedition) 96 5Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd[1959] UKHL 1 6Ibid. 1 2
parties and valid consideration would enforce a valid contract between them. Hence, Julie cannot deny to provide the service for the event as she has a binding contract with Peter. Conclusion Peter and Julie are bound into a commercial contract for the fundraiser event and hence, Julie cannot deny offering services for the events as there is mutual consideration and intention to form legal contract. Question 3 Issue The issue is to comment whether Tina and Julie are legally bounded with contractual liabilities or not for the case where Tina has asked to amend the initial contract. Rule Presence of valid consideration for contract is an imperative factor. Parties can amend the original contract if they is agreement on revised terms of new contract. Further, it is essential that both the parties must have consideration so as to ensure that the contract would be enforceable on the parties7. It is noteworthy that formation of new contract with part payment so as to discharge the payment of the existing debt would not be considered as valid consideration as highlighted in the judgementofFoakes v Beer8case. However, in this regards, consideration would be valid only when the party is ready to provide partial payment along with some additional compensation as evident fromPinnel’s Case9case. In such cases, the creditor is not at loss considering that the part payment is received along with additional consideration in a different form10. Application It can be seen that Tina has to pay $2300 to Julie for the provided services. However, Tina is not able to pay the debt and hence, she has offered Julie that she would pay $1500 and also referred her to her aunt who frequently needs traffic service maintainer for ample projects. Julie has agreed with this consideration which implies that new contract would be enacted 7Ibid. 1 8Foakes v Beer(1883) LR 9 App Cas 60 9Pinnel’s Case(1602) 5 Co Rep 117 10Robert Bryan Vermeesch and Kevin Edmund Lindgren,Business Law of Australia(Butterworths, 2013, 12thedition) 85 3
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
between Tina and Julie based on new consideration. It is imperative to note that both the parties have some consideration as Tina has to pay only part of the payment which has reduced her total debt and also, Julie has consideration for getting more projects in near future due to the reference of Tina. Thereby, Tina and Julie have valid contract based on new consideration. Conclusion It is apparent that Tina and Julie both have valid consideration in the amended contract and thus, Tina and Julie have valid contract for the part payment of debt. Question 4 Issue The main issue is to determine whether Michael would be estopped in relation to going back on his promise to Julie considering the fact that Julie has ordered to equipment required to provide the service to Michael based on the assurance given by him. Rule There are cases where one of the contracting parties made certain promise or provide assurance to fulfil the promise to the other party by enacting contract in future. Also, based on this assurance the other party takes some actions in relation to complete the liabilities of the futuristic contract with the concerned party. However, if the first party decides to not enact the contract with the second party then in such scenario, the parties would be considered as legally associated with the contractual liabilities irrespective of fact that no formal contract is formed between the parties11. This is because the doctrine of promissory estopped would be enforceable and the party has to satisfy the promise so that the rights of the second party would be safeguarded. The evidence of this underlying aspect is highlighted inWaltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher12case where the rights of the aggrieved party (second party) who had performed the acts based on the promise made by the first party was protected only when the first party had confirmed about the promise from second party. Further, the defaulting party could not deny fulfilling the promise because the aggrieved party 11Athule Pathinayake,Commercial and Corporations Law,(Thomson-Reuters, 2014, 2ndedition) 145 12Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher[1988] HCA 7 4
has taken steps based on the assurance only and thus, both would be bounded with the legal duties to complete the promise13. Application It is apparent that Michael has made a promise to Julie to enact a contract that he would take his services. Julie has specified to him that the required service would also require a special equipment which would cost $3000.. Michael agreed with this and also, assured him that he would enact the contract and she can also buy the required equipment. Julie has purchased the equipment based on this promise which was reconfirmed by her. However, later on Michael denied to enact the contract which means the estoppel would be enforceable as Julie has made all the necessary arrangement i.e. bought the equipment based on the assurance of Michael. Conclusion Michael would be estopped in relation to claiming that he does not has a valid contract with Julie because Julie has acted based on the promise made by Michael. 13Wayne Pendleton and RogerVickery,Australian business law:principles and applications, (Pearson Publications,2015, 8thedition) 74 5