Law of Contract: Validity and Enforceability

1
Part A
1.
The issue in this part of the task is if there is an enforceable contract created between Ian and
Ben and if Ian is going to succeed with his claim.
According to the law of contract, a pregame post in the contract is an agreement that is
enforceable by the courts. A valid and legally enforceable contract has certain vital elements.
Therefore, the law needs that an offer should be made by a party and the other should accept it.
Another requirement is of the meeting of the minds between the parties. Similarly a valid
consideration is also required and the parties should have the legal capacity to form the contract.
According to the law of contract, an offer can be revoked any time before the same is accepted.
Likewise, the law also requires that their party should accept the offer unequivocally. This means
that no new conditions should be introduced while accepting the offer. It alternates to be noted
that the postal rule of acceptance provides that it is considered that a contract has been formed
between the parties when the party that has accepted the offer places the acceptance letter in
mailbox. Therefore, this rule can be considered as an exception to the general rule provides that
acceptance is considered to be complete when it has been accepted by the other party. The postal
rule has been introduced by the court in Adams v Lindsell (1818). This rule was further affirmed
by the court in the case of Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879).
In Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft GmbH (1983) it had been
mentioned by the court that acceptance is going to be treated as effective when the party that has
accepted the offer is going to place the acceptance letter in mailbox or to the post-office.

2
When the rules discussed above are applied to the facts of this case, it can be stated that an offer
has been made by Ben. This offer was made to Ian and the same was accepted by him on 1st
April when Ian posted the letter containing the acceptance. Therefore, it can be considered that
the contract has been concluded between the parties at that time. Consequently now Ian cannot
be allowed to revoke the offer made by him.
Under the circumstances, it can be stated that any enforceable contract is present between Ben
and Ian. Therefore if Ian decides to sue Ben for breach of contract, he will probably succeed with
the claim.
The issue in this question is if Ben has any defense is available to him against the claim initiated
by Sharon and if Sharon is going to succeed with the claim.
According to the general rule when the parties have made a mistake regarding any aspect of the
contract, a right is not available to the parties to escape the obligations that have been imposed
by such a contract, even if the mistake is basic. However it needs to be noted in this context that
under the law of contract there are four types of mistakes where contractual remedies are
available to the parties even under some limited circumstances. These can be described as
common mistake, mutual, unilateral mistake and non-est factum. A mutual mistake takes place in
case of a contract where both the parties have made a mistake regarding a particular aspect of the
contract. Due to such mistake, the parties are at cross purposes. Hence in such a case, even if
there is a meeting of the minds of the parties but the parties are under a mistake. Therefore, such

3
contact is considered as voidable. Hence, in case of a mutual mistake, the parties have made a
mistake concerning some significant fact related with the contract.
According to contract law, the plea of mistake can also be used in the form of defense. In such
case, when the defense of mistake has been used effectively, a verdict can be delivered by the
court according to which it can be stated that the contract was void ab initio or that the contract
was voidable. But where the case is related with a common mistake, there is mistaken belief on
part of both the parties to the contract regarding the facts of the contract. Therefore in such a
case, where common mistake is involved, it may be declared by the court that the contract is void
only if the mistake is related with the nature as a result of which the performance of the contract
becomes impossible.
An applicable case in this context is Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864). Here, the parties decided to
shift their goods on a vessel which was called Peerless but the reality was that both parties
referred to diverse ships. Therefore, the parties to the contract had a dissimilar understanding
concerning the date on which the merchandise were to be shipped. As a result, even if there was
a meeting of the minds, still the parties were under the mistake concerning the diverse meaning
understood by each party. But this case does not reflect a mutual mistake as it shows the failure
of mutual assent. Under the circumstances it was mentioned by the court that a contract has not
been formed between the parties on account of the fact that mutual assent is necessary for the
formation of a valid contract that can be enforced by the law.
In the present case, Dan was under the belief that Sharon is an expert in astronomy. On the other
hand, the reality was that Sharon was an exciting astrology. Similarly Sharon was under the
belief that she has been invited for delivering a lecture to a class on astrology. Under the