Essential Features of a Valid Contract

Q 1.
Issue: the issue that arises in discussion on the basis of the facts provided is if Bryce and Damien
had the intention of creating a legally enforceable contract.
Rule: Some factors that should exist in the agreement in order to make it enforceable by law.
Among these factors is the intention of the parties that they are forming a contract that can be
enforced by the law. Another element is related to the presence of valid consideration. As a result
of the obligation concerning the intention of creating legal associations, the cases where any
action by the courts will not be appropriate, can be sifted out (Peel and Treitel, 2011). For
example, when two friends have decided to meet for dinner, although there is a moral obligation
regarding such promise, but there is no legal obligation to fulfill this promise. In this case, the
parties lacked the aim of creating a lawful association. In such cases, the law also acts according
to the wishes of the parties (Atiyah, 2000). For the purpose of deciding if the courts can enforce a
particular agreement, the difference between agreement stated in context of social or domestic
relations and the transactions made by the parties in case of trade and commerce are
differentiated (Collins, 2003).
Similarly, in case of a valid contract, in return of the promise made by one party, the party is
required to supply consideration (McKendrick, 2009). As a result, the consideration needs to be
supplied in lieu of the promise of other party (Thomas v Thomas, 1842). For example, in
Roscorla V Thomas (1842) , the court mentioned that consideration was "used up" and therefore
the promise of other party regarding the soundness of the horse was not supported by
consideration. Similarly, in Re Mcardle (1951) the court stated that past consideration was not
valid.

Application: Therefore, keeping in view the requirements of law, mentioned above and the
relevant case law, it can be decided that in the present case also Bryce has been helping Damien
with his personal and business tax returns as he was a qualified accountant. However, Bryce had
only charged a nominal fee for these services. As a result, Damien had saved a lot of money and
he was indebted to Bryce. But in view of the legal position, it is clear that the services rendered
by Bryce only amounted to past consideration. As a result this cannot be treated as valid
consideration. Therefore, it was not capable of supporting Damien's promise. But even when the
parties are entering into a transaction in connection with trade or commerce, the law provides
that a rebuttable presumption is visible in which it was the intention of the parties to create legal
relationship. However, here a lawful contract has not been twisted among the parties. The reason
is that in this case, consideration is not present in lieu of the promise made by Damian.
Conclusion: Here the elements that are required for creating a valid contract do not exist. For
example, there is lack of consideration in return of the Damian’s promise. As a result, an
enforceable contract has not been shaped between Bryce and Damien.

Q 2.
Issue: The present issue deals with the presence of a valid contract. And for this reason, it has to
be considered if all factors required for the emergence of a valid contract exist.
Rule: Contract law provides that there are certain basic features that ought to exist in case of an
agreement if it has to be decided that the agreement is enforceable by law. Consequently, an
agreement is valid contract only if it can be imposed by law. Therefore, it is worth mentioning
that while all contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts (Beatson, 2010). The
first element that is regarding this regard is that the offer and acceptance. It is required that one
party, known as the promisor should make a lawful offer. On the other hand, the other party is
required to accept the offer unconditionally (Entores v Miles Far East Corp., 1955).
Intention: it is also essential that the parties intended to enter a lawful association. The issue of
intention of the parties was discussed in Balfour vs. Balfour (1919). Another requirement is
related to the presence of consideration. Consideration is also necessary in case of a valid
contract (Goode and McKendrick, 2006). However, consideration should be provided at the
desire of the other party. If this is not the case, it is not valid.
It is also essential that the parties ought to have the capacity to produce a valid contract.
Similarly, free consent of the parties should also be present. On the other hand, consent is
vitiated on account of force, fraud or misrepresentation.
Application: in the present case, Bryce was not happy with the price quoted by Damien. But
under the contract law, it is obligatory that the other party should accept it unconditionally.
Therefore, acceptance ought to be the mirror image of the offer. If new terms are mentioned
while accepting the offer, it amounts to a counter offer. In case of a counter offer, the original

offer is considered to be moved and it cannot be accepted afterwards. An offer also needs to be
separated from invitation to treat (Pharmaceutical Society v Boots., 1953).
Therefore, even if it is assumed in the present case that the parties intended to form a legal
relation and at the same time, valid consideration was also present, the other elements that are
required for the contract exist in this matter. The basis is that Bryce had made an offer to pay
$20,000 for the NBA Tour. This offer was accepted by Damien. Consequently, the parties have
created a valid contract.
Conclusion: After assuming that the essentials of intention and consideration exist in this case, it
can be stated that all elements that are necessary for the formation of an enforceable contract do
exist here. Under these circumstances, Bryce can require Damien to provide premium travel and
accommodation to him.

References
Atiyah, P.S. 2000, An Introduction to the Law of Contract Clarendon
Beatson, J., 2010, A Burrows and J Cartwright, Anson's Law of Contract (29th edn OUP 2010)
Collins, H., 2003, Contract Law in Context 4th edn CUP
Goode R and McKendrick, E 2006, Goode on Commercial Law 4th edn Penguin
McKendrick, E., 2009, Contract Law 8th edn Palgrave
Peel E and Treitel, G.H. 2011, Treitel on the Law of Contract 13th edn Sweet and Maxwell
Case Law
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401
Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669
Roscorla v Thomas, (1842) 3 QB 234
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851