Jerry and Tom Case Study 2022

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
NAME OF THE STUDENT
NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY
AUTHORS NOTE

CASE STUDY1
PART 1:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether there exists a valid contract between Jerry and Tom.
Rules:
Invitation to Offer is the way by which the party invites the other party to initiates offer
for the contract. The basic difference between invitation to offer and offer is that in offer the
legal intention to enter into contracts is established whereas the former only establishes the
intention to establish the terms of a contract and not the final contract. In Boots Case1, it was
stated that the display of shoes in a shop is an invitation to offer. Independent Contractors Act
2006 (Cth), Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Australian Consumer Law, application to ACCC
(independent federal body) for Collective bargaining, and so on. However, on equitable
terms, the equity may interfere and make decisions with the validity of the contract being void
or voidable.
Application:
In the given scenario, it can be explained that Jerry has placed an invitation to Tom to
buy his shares if he wants the hold over the company. Therefore, no offer was made and no
intention for legal relationship for the existence of contract between Tom and Jerry can be
established. Thus, there is no valid contract formed between Tom and Jerry because, comment
1 [1953] EWCA Civ 6

CASE STUDY2
made by Jerry is the invitation to offer to enter into contract. Hence, Tom is not liable to pay
Jerry any amount of money.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that valid contract has not been formed between Jerry and Tom.
PART 2:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether StarShipping are liable to pay for the laptops that are
destroyed.
Rules:
Non-Est Factum is the defence in the law of contracts (Common Law principles) as
laid down in Petelin vs. Cullen2. According to the defence, the signing party may claim that
such contract was signed mistakenly without the knowledge of its meaning. If the plea is
successful, then such contract would be held as “void ab initio”. However, for the establishment
for such plea, it should also be proved that such term is in contradiction with the interest of the
party signing the contract. It should be established that the signing of the contract was a basic
mistake and such signing has changed the decision of the party towards the contract. However,
the negligence or the carelessness on the part of the signee to read the provisions of the contract
carefully does not undermine the success of such plea (Petelin vs. Cullen).
2 [1975] HCA 24