The relationship of student teacher

Business law
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
0
Student’s Name
HA2022
1 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0

“HA2022” 1
Contents
Question 1...................................................................................................................................2
Issue 2
Rules 2
Application 3
Conclusion 3
References..................................................................................................................................4
Question 2...................................................................................................................................5
Issue 5
Rules 5
Application 6
Conclusion 6
References..................................................................................................................................7

“HA2022” 2
Question 1
Issue
Whether a contract existed between Greta and Sam?
Rules
For every valid contract, certain elements are needed to exist. If anyone or more elements
remain missing in dealing then an enforceable contract cannot be developed between the
parties. These elements are also known as the essentials of the contract. The very first
essential is an offer, which is a proposal from one party to another. In this proposal, a party
promise to do some act or not doing the same in exchange for another promise. The maker of
such a proposal is known as the offeror and the receiver is known as offeree. For a valid offer,
it is necessary that the same must contain an intention of the offeror to be bind as decided in
the case of Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1. In addition to this, all the terms of the offer must
be clear and determined (Judge, 2009). Many of the times, people consider an invitation to
treat, as offer whereas in actual both terms has different meanings and applications. An
invitation to treat is simply a call for offers and needs not to exist in each case. Nevertheless
in those cases where an invitation to treat exist it comes before an offer. In reply to such an
invitation, other people make an offer that further needs to get consent. Some of the
communications have been identified as an invitation to treat in the past cases. In the
decision of one of such case named Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425, it was
provided that advertisements generally constitutes an invitation to treat rather than an offer
(Taylor and Taylor, 2015).
Another element, which is required under an enforceable contract, is acceptance. Similar to
offer, rules related to valid acceptance are also defined under the common law of contract.
The first rule states that acceptance must be appropriately communicated to the offeror.
Further, the acceptance is required to be given for similar terms as proposed under an offer. If
the offeree does not provide his/her absolute, consent or accept the offer by making some
changes in the original terms proposed in the offer then such consent does not treat as valid
consent. Such communication is known as a counteroffer where offeree responds to an offer
by creating another offer on different terms. In the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132,
it was given that a counteroffer cancels all the previous offers (Yule and Darwent, 2013). After
the insertion of a counteroffer, the other party has to decide whether to accept or reject the
subjective offer. Lastly, valid consent is a certain one. In other words, to state that out of
consent, it must be possible to decide what the parties have consented to.
Consideration is another important element that must mention in an offer in a clear manner.
Anything is allowed to be a valid consideration under contract law that has some values in the
opinion of the law. As given in the case of Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87, the adequacy of
the consideration does not take any matter as its sufficiency does (Burrows, 2018). A further
intention of the parties is another essential of a valid contract according to which all the
parties of the contract must intend to bind each other legally. Checking the presence or
absence of such intention is a difficult thing to do hence the decision of such cases may be
used for this purpose where courts have provided some grounds to determine the presence of
intention of parties. Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1 is
one of such cases where the court has provided that the agreements made in commercial
context give an assumption of the existence of intention of parties to develop legal relations.