Commercial Law: Case Study Analysis - Business Law Module

This case study analyzes a commercial law scenario involving Peter and his magazine 'Vision.' The analysis addresses key legal issues, including the formation of a legally binding contract between Peter and Ray, the applicability of the postal rule, and whether Ray owes an additional payment. It also examines Peter's legal rights and responsibilities towards Sara regarding a subscription price increase, and the existence of a contract between Peter and Tom. The analysis references relevant case law such as Adam v Lindsell, Smith v Hughes, and Currie v Misa to determine the legal outcomes for each situation. The conclusion summarizes the contractual obligations and rights of the parties involved based on the application of established legal principles.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
COMMERCIAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
A particular contract in order to be legally binding must fulfil certain necessary elements.
There are certain primary issues that will be discussed in relation to the given scenario. For
instance, has a legally obligatory contract been established between Peter and Ray, and whether
Ray should pay the additional 50 pounds to Peter? Another issue is what the legal rights or the
legal responsibilities of Peter may be in relation to Sara concerning the additional 15 pounds. It
shall also be discussed that whether a legally obligatory contract has been established between
Tom and Peter, and what may be the legal responsibilities and legal rights of Peter in relation to
Tom.
In this regard, the case of Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681 must be regarded as a
significant case. The notion of postal rule was initially formed in this particular case. In this case,
it was stated that when a particular acceptance is made through post, then, as per the normal
utilization by mankind, the acceptance shall be said to have been made when the acceptance has
been posted. The ruling of this case was supported by another case named Henthorn v
Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.
The case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 must be considered to be a relevant
case in relation to the given scenario. In this case, it was forwarded that when any specific offer
is made and in response to that specific offer, an acceptance is made, then it may be said that
there is an existence of an agreement. In the case of Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153, it was
stated that the element of consideration is a major requisite before the establishment and
enforcement of a contract. The parties that are involved must have the legal intention for the
establishment of a contract.

2COMMERCIAL LAW
The case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961]
EWCA Civ 7 is an important case in this regard. It was stated the justification for demanding
more money shall depend upon what is provided in the contract in an expressed manner.
Applying Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681 and Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27, it
may be said that the acceptance by Ray shall be said to have been made when the acceptance has
been posted. Therefore, Ray does not owe the additional amount of 50 pounds to Peter.
After applying Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 and Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex
153, it may be said that that the essentials in relation to the establishment and enforcement of a
contract are not present between Peter and Tom, particularly the legal intention for the
establishment of a contract is absent between them.
Applying Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961] EWCA
Civ 7, it may be said that the justification for demanding more money by Peter from Sara shall
depend upon what is provided in the contract in an expressed manner.
In conclusion, it may be said that there is a legally obligatory contract has been
established between Peter and Ray, but not between Peter and Tom. Peter must provide proper
justification to Sara concerning the additional 15 pounds.

3COMMERCIAL LAW
References
Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald 681.
Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.
Workers Trust v Dojap Investments Ltd [1993] UKPC 7.