Instant Scenario Presentation 2022

Slide 2
The concern that can be drawn from the instant scenario is whether any legally valid and
enforceable contract has been created by Forthryt. If any such contract has been created
exactly at what point of time it has been created and with whom.
Slide 3
The contract can only be considered as valid in the eyes of law if it has been concluded by an
offer coming from the offeror and receiving the assent from the person to whom the offer has
been made and has been consisting of all the essential requisites of a contract which is valid.
The need for the essential requisites to be present in a valid contract to render it enforceable
can be explained in lines with the case of Appleson v Littlewoods 1939. The essential
requisites that extends the status of validity to a contract are offer as well as acceptance
resulting in a valid contract, the motive of instituting a valid legal relation, a consideration
accruing for the parties involved in a contract, the capacity pertaining to the parties to enter
into a contract and the subject matter of the contract being lawful. The institution of a valid
contract that has been compliant with all the requisites of a contract binds the parties to be
legally responsible and any contravention of their responsibilities of the contract would land
them in legal consequences. This can be explained with the case of Rose & Frank Co. v JR
Crompton & Bros Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 261.
The primary requisite for a valid contract is an offer that has been subjected to acceptance.
Such an agreement also requires to be accompanied with and objective of the formation of
legal connection between the parties and created upon terms that are clear and certain as can
be supported by the case of George Hudson Holdings Ltd v Rudder (1973) 128 CLR 387.
The acceptance of an offer needs to be made with respect to every term of the offer and no

disagreements should be presented with respect to any of the offers as has been seen in the
case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.
As per the principles established in the case of Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 an offeree
is required to accept the terms pertaining to the offer in this entirety and without any
alteration in the terms. Such acceptance which has been qualified by some alteration in the
terms would result in counter offer which is required to be accepted by the other party the
same can be treated as the rejection of the prior offer. However, according to the principles
that has been established in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681, in case of
postal rule, the time of communication of an acceptance creating a valid contract is the time
at which the letter has been posted containing the communication.
There should be an intention of the parties involved in a contract to have the intention to be
engaged in a legal relation that has enforceability under the legal regime. As the per
principles that has been established in the case of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox
Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8, social agreements should not be given the status of a
valid contract.
Slide 4
In the instant situation, Forthryt has been looking for the publisher to publish his second book
has he has not been treated well by Metro Publishers during the publication of his first book.
At a party held in February he met another publisher named Boswold and expressed his
desire to sell his book to Boswold for a price more than 40 grand. This has been agreed to be
a reasonable price by Boswold. This is required to be considered as an agreement as the same
has not been made with a wish to engage in a legal relations and is more of a social
agreement which can be contended by virtue of the principles established in the case of
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8.

On being approached by Metro Publishers, he has expressed his desire to sell his book to the
highest bidder, which is more of an invitation to make an offer and not an offer itself.
However, in response to the same, Metro made an offer of $50,000 which Forthryt has
avoided by claiming that he will consider the same which cannot be treated as an acceptance
of valid nature as per the principles found in the case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB
597.
Another offer has been received by Forthryt by Havoc films who wanted to make a film on
his book for $45,000, which has been accepted by Forthryt with altered terms to have the
discretion of selecting the lead cast of the film. This makes the acceptance to be considered as
a counter offer rejecting the prior offer as per the principles of the case of Hyde v. Wrench
(1840) 3 Beav 334.
On the other hand, Forthryt has been approached by Boswold for an offer to buy the book for
$40,000, which on being asked by Forthryt has been increased to $45,000 effecting which a
form has been sent to Forthryt. Forthryt put his signature on the same and went to the post
office to post the same and handed over the envelop to a postal clerk for the purpose of
posting. By that time he got an offer from Pickwick who made another offer to purchase the
book for $45,000 which Forthryt agreed owing to the reputation of Pickwick in treating the
authors good. He would be entitled to form the contract has the form to Boswold has not been
posted yet and no contract has been formed and he has recovered the envelop before it court
have been posted as can be concluded from the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald
681. The time at which both Boswold and Pickwick has effected the offer and acceptance to
sell the book, the contract has been concluded.
Slide 5