Analyzing Contract Law: Alex, Chris, and Brendan's Legal Dispute

This case study analyzes a contract law dispute between Alex and Brendan. The scenario involves Alex hiring Brendan, a photographer, for a wedding. The assignment delves into the legal principles of offer, acceptance, and consideration, examining whether a legally binding contract was formed. It explores the initial agreement, subsequent communications, and the potential for breach when Brendan receives a more lucrative offer. The analysis scrutinizes the exchange of emails, the lack of clarity on key terms, and the absence of a defined consideration amount. Furthermore, the case study examines whether Alex can sue Brendan for breach of contract, and whether Brendan can recover additional payment. The solution applies legal principles to the facts, drawing conclusions about the enforceability of the agreements and the rights of each party involved. The analysis also discusses the concept of duress and its applicability to the scenario.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
Whether Alex could bring a legal action against Brendan
Rule
The most essential requisites to form a valid and legally binding contract are
exchange of a proper offer and acceptance, deciding upon a consideration amount, intention
of the parties to form a legal relationship, capacity of the parties to form a legal relation, and
lastly the contract must have a certainty which decides whether the agreement is complete,
clear and binding1.
The existence of a contract between the parties majorly depends upon the exchange of
a proper offer and acceptance where it is the offeror who offers and an offeree accepts such
offer. It is to be seen that an offer should not be an invitation to treat that calls for others too
to make an offer to the person inviting2. An offer can be withdrawn by the offeror before it is
accepted by the person to whom it is made3. Similarly an acceptance could be withdrawn by
the offeree until it is communicated to and acknowledged by the offeror. Once an offer and
acceptance has been properly exchanged without ambiguity, the parties have no other option
but to execute or perform the contract4.
However, apart from an exchange offer and acceptance, a consideration amount is
also required to be decided while forming the agreement. A consideration is what symbolises
that the parties are well compensated; birthday party gains something out of the agreement5.
As held in the case of Woolworths Ltd v Kelly, a consideration may not be adequate as the
1 Beale, Hugh, et al. Cases, materials and text on contract law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019)
2 Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)
3 Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6
4 Ibid.
5 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20

2BUSINESS LAW
court does not determine the value for the sufficiency of the consideration, as different units
have different values to each party to an agreement; sufficient consideration also include
intangible goods like love and affection6. However it is important that a valid consideration
amount is to be a great by both the parties before they confirm the agreement.
Apart from the elements of offer, acceptance and consideration, the parties should
have the capacity to enter into a contract with each other which includes that they should not
be a) minor, b) unsound mind, c) bankrupt, d) intoxicated. Parties are refraining from entering
into a contract in case they lack capacity7. In addition, the parties must have an intention to
form a legal relationship knowing the legal consequences. In this regard it was held in the
case of Masters v Cameron that the parties interested to form a legal relationship among them
immediately bound themselves by the terms of the bargain and shall act accordingly8.
When a party to the contract is not willing to perform his obligations he may
repudiate the contract. However such repudiation of one's obligation leads to the deprivation
of the other party9.
Under common law or a party who has sustained a loss due to a breach of contract is
eligible to receive damages which are the compensation for suffering from the breach.
Damages are like a substitute for the performance of the agreement which has been breached.
Application
In the given case Alex hired Brendan for taking photographs on the wedding and
reception of Alex and Chris. On receiving the offer from Alex, Brendan send a detailed email
where he mentions all the intricate details of the program along with the specifications of the
photos and the discount percentage that he could offer for the project, where he asks Alex as
6 Woolworths Ltd v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189.
7 Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)
8 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR
9 Beale, Hugh, et al. Cases, materials and text on contract law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019)

3BUSINESS LAW
to whether the deliverables were covering everything or not. Alex sent an emoji of a smiling
face as a reply to Brendan’s email. This implies that a proper exchange of offer and its
acceptance was established between the parties. Alex being the offeror in this case as he
being the one who gave the proposal of the wedding and reception photography project to
Brendan. Here, Brendan is the offeree as he is the one to whom the offer was made and he
accepted it. Hence a proper exchange of an offer and acceptance could be seen in this
situation.
However, the issue lies in the fact that Brendan’s question pertaining to covering
everything that Alex was looking for was not addressed by Alex or Chris. Moreover, as a
reply to Brendan’s email, Alex had only sent an emoji which does not qualified to be an
affirmation get does not signifies a denial as well. There lies an ambiguity with the formation
and confirmation of the agreement.
More importantly, it is to be noted that Brendan had only mentioned the discount
percentage that he could offer to Alex, which was around 50% less than what any other
standard wedding photographer would charge. It did not mention a sufficient consideration
amount which forms the core of the agreement where both the parties gain something out of
the agreement. Neither did Alex coated a price feasible as per his pocket, nor did Brendan
mention his exact amount of fee for the entire project. This marks the sign that the agreement
severely lacked a sufficient consideration which is one of the essential requisites to form a
valid and legally binding contract.
Therefore the absence of a a sufficient consideration amount along with an ambiguity
with the confirmation of the agreement from Alex’s end. Thus As per the essential requisites,
the contract between Alex and Brendan does not hold a legal force as it not only lacks a
sufficient consideration amount that confirms the gains of both the parties, but also lacks
certainty, that confirms about the status of the agreement between the parties.

4BUSINESS LAW
Conclusions
Therefore Alex cannot bring any legal action against Brendan as it lacked a legal
force
Question 2
Issue
Whether Brendan could recover the additional sum of $2,500 from Alex and Chris
Rule
Under common law, offer and acceptance are the main requisites of a valid and
legally binding agreement. An offer should be demarcated from an invitation to treat; the
former being a direct query to a potential offeree while the latter is a request to others for
making an offer to the person inviting in order to negotiate an agreement10. An offer once
accepted cannot be revoked by the offeror. Similarly an offeree cannot avoid and offer once
he has accepted that. Unless otherwise decided by the parties, an agreement can be
discharged by agreement between the parties where they mutually agree to discharge it. A
contract majorly depends upon the exchange of an offer and acceptance where it is the offeror
who offers and an offeree accepts such offer. It is to be seen that an offer should not be an
invitation to treat that calls for others too to make an offer to the person inviting11. An offer
can be withdrawn by the offeror before it is accepted by the person to whom it is made.
Similarly an acceptance could be withdrawn by the offeree until it is communicated to and
acknowledged by the offeror. Once an offer and acceptance has been properly exchanged
without ambiguity, the parties I have no other option but to execute or perform the contract12.
10 Woolworths Ltd v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189
11 Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6
12 Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)

5BUSINESS LAW
As under the common law, a new offer or negotiation between the parties extinguish
the old or existing ones. As soon as an agreement comes into force, the conditions contained
in such agreement are either known as Express terms or implied terms13. Express terms are
the written or spoken promissory statement, enforceable in a court of law, making up parts of
a contract14. While implied terms are the unspoken or unwritten conditions that a contract
may bear in its normal course. Express terms could only be incorporated into a contract
before the contract is confirmed or finalized by both the parties. In case of an oral contract,
Express term if changed after the agreement has been finalized, then in that case the previous
terms would stand rejected and the new terms shall prevail to be in action. The change in
terms shall be agreed by both the parties to the contract and shall be considered to be final
unless new terms are implemented under mutual consent15. The parties implementing new
terms mutually shall be bound by the existing terms and shall be held liable for breach, if they
do not perform the contract as per the agreed terms.
A party to a contract has different ways to avoid a contractual obligation. One of
which is known as duress where an aggrieved party is allowed to pass a contractual
obligation by laying down the fact that the contract was implemented on duress or abuse of
position. When a stronger party exerts unreasonable pressure on the weaker one, thereby
making the weaker party to agree to enter into a contract or agree to an expressed term.
Entering into a contract for a green to an Express term without one’s free consent, would be
considered as duress which is considered to be illegitimate under contract law16. Duress me
include apprehension of physical heart or it may be in the form of economic duress17. The
stronger party may threaten the weaker one to physically hurt him, or may threaten to cause
an economical loss to the weaker party by way of his dominance. In case of economic duress
13 O'Sullivan, Janet. O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract.( Oxford University Press, 2018)
14 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA 2, [1971] 2 QB 163
15 Beale, Hugh, et al. Cases, materials and text on contract law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019)
16 Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)
17 O'Sullivan, Janet. O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract.( Oxford University Press, 2018)

6BUSINESS LAW
stronger party may threaten the weaker as to not perform the contract. The weaker party
cannot claim a remedy on duress if it is established that he had the option to avail the service
from another party apart from the party exercising duress18.
Application
In the given alternative case it is seen that Alex and Brendan had a agreed to a definite
consideration of $500 as Brendan’s fee to complete the photography project of Alex and
Chris's wedding and reception. However Brendan refused to continue with the project when
he found out that a magazine has given him an opportunity of conducting a wildlife photo
shoot for $3,000 per day. For Brendan, the offer and the remuneration work both important as
the opportunity was lucrative and he was in need of the money as well. In this regard Alex
offers to pay and additional sum of $2,500 to Brendan in order to convince him to continue
with the photography assignment of his wedding and reception. Before offering to pay an
additional $2,500 to Brendan in order to convince him to continue with the project, Alex had
inquired about the cheapest photographer available for replacing Brendan which amounted to
$5000. Therefore in this regard it could be held that Alex had taken a clever step to convince
Brendan for $3000 in total, thereby saving $2000. Here Brendan’s actions cannot be held as
act of duress. It is so big is Alex had the opportunity to let go of the agreement with Brendan
and pursue another photographer for a higher price though. Therefore it cannot be considered
as a tourist on Brendan’s part, even though he exerted indirect pressure on Alex and Chris.
However the promise to make an the additional payment of $2,500 was Alex’s decision.
In this regard, Alex and Brendan have an agreement to pursue the wedding and
reception photography project for a consideration amount of $500; Alex was entitled to
damages when Brendan refused to to complete the project. However it could be seen that
Alex formed a second agreement with Brendan in order to pay him an additional amount of
18 Ibid.

7BUSINESS LAW
$2,500 which is to be considered a new agreement comprising of a fresh offer and
acceptance. On a later situation, Alex is denying to pay the agreed additional amount of
$2,500 to Brendan which was mutually agreed by both of them as fresh terms of agreement.
Therefore in this regard Alex shall be held liable to pay the additional $2,500 to Brendan as
promised.
Conclusion
Therefore Brendan shall be eligible to recover the additional $2,500 from Alex.

8BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Books/Journals
Beale, Hugh, et al. Cases, materials and text on contract law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019)
O'Sullivan, Janet. O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract. Oxford University Press,
2018
Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)
Case laws
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6
Woolworths Ltd v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189