Rule Contract will only be have the status of validity

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Part A
Issue
The facts of the case presents the issue whether there is any valid contract being created having
the authority of being enforced by Forthryt. Whether any exact point of time can be spotted with respect
to the creation of the contract.
Rule
Contract will only be have the status of validity, if the same has been created by an individual
with adherence to all the requisites a valid contract under common law. This requires an offer made by
one of the parties and the same being accepted by another with view of indulging into a relationship of
legal value. The adherence to the requisites of a valid contract for the purpose of creation of an
enforceable contract has been laid down in the principles established in Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB
597. The mentioned requisites of an enforceable contract includes offer along with acceptance, intention
of making legal relation, consideration, capacity of the parties and lawfulness of the subject matter.
The most significant part of the creation of an enforceable contract lies with the valid institution
of an offer being extended with the consent of the other party towards the same effecting an acceptance of
valid nature. In all the endeavours undertaken by the individuals involved in the institution of a valid
contract, the party should always base their decisions upon the contention of laying down the foundation
of legal relationship between them by enumerating the terms of the contract, which are unambiguous and
having clarity. This comes in line with the proceeding of Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6. Social
agreements will not amount to a valid contract and a clear intention of creating a legal relation is to be
displayed in the arrangement of the institution of the contract. This can be illustrated with the case of
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975. While accepting an offer the party involved needs to address all the
terms belonging to the offer and accept all of it. All terms of the offer should be disagreed upon by the
person accepting as per the provisions enumerated in the proceeding of Powell v Lee (1908) 99 L.T. 284.

BUSINESS LAW2
The acceptance should be in adherence to the terms of the offer made and any e alteration that the
party accepting brings about while accepting the offer needy to be treated as a counter offer as has been
contended in the case of Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334. It has also been held in this case that a
counter offer needs to be e accepted for the purpose of being rendered as a valid contract.
Acceptance is said to be communicated as soon as the same has been posted as per the postal rule
involved with the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681.
Application
It has been made evident with the facts of the given scenario that Forthryt was not satisfied by the
treatment given by Metro Publishers during the first publication his book and has been desiring to have
another publisher to publish his second book. He had a meeting with Boswold who has been involved in
the publishing business in the month of February where he has displayed his willingness to see the
publication of the second book to Boswold for a price of 40000 dollars. Boswold contented the price to be
reasonable. This depicts more of an agreement than that of a contract as the arrangement under which the
agreement has been arrived upon seems like a agreement of social nature which is not enough to give rise
to a valid contract as per the principles coming in line with the decision of Merritt v Merritt [1970]
EWCA Civ 6.
At the time when Metro Publishers wanted to purchase the rights of publishing his second book,
Forthryt exclaimed that he will sell the book to the individual who will offer him the highest payment.
This should be treated as a invitation for the purpose of making a valid offer and should not be construed
as an offer in itself. Again, there has been an offer made by Metro Publisher against this invitation for
$50,000. However against the offer Forthryt exclaim to consider the same and did not readily accepted
the offer. Hence, no contract has been created as per the acceptance requirement enumerated in the
decision of Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975.