Case Study: Enforceability of Contracts Between Curtis and Jasmine

This case study analyzes the legal enforceability of a business agreement between Curtis and Jasmine. The analysis explores the key elements of a contract, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and legal intention, within the context of the Australian legal system. The document presents two solu...Read More

1
Contents
Solution 1.........................................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Rule..............................................................................................................................................2
Application...................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4
Solution 2.........................................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rule..............................................................................................................................................4
Application...................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Reference List..................................................................................................................................6

2
Solution 1
Issue
Is there a presence of legal intention and consideration between Curtis and Jasmine resulting an
enforceable contract?
Rule
Every country is governed by laws which are segregated in civil and criminal laws. Civil laws
govern the relationship amid two private parties and one of the significant laws includes the law
of contract. A contract rule governs the relationship between two parties of private nature and
establishes the commands which must be followed by them and if such commands that are made
part of the contract are not followed, then, they must face liquidated, compensatory, restitution
etc kind of damages.
A contract is a kind of agreement which has the legal approval and wherein the parties can seek
the doors of court at the time of conflicts. No contract can be made unless all of its elements are
fulfilled with. The main elements in any contract includes an agreement, that the parties must be
capable, have lawful mindset and consideration (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
(Graw et.al 2015)
Now, it is assumed that there is presence of an agreement, that is, an offer and an acceptance, and
thus the presence of consideration and legal intention is evaluated.
Lawful intention establishes that when the parties swap promises then they intent to abide by the
promises in law. In simple words if there is any kind of tussle that originates between the parties
then they are willing to seek redressed from court. The presence of legal intention is considered
to be the basis to convert any agreement into an enforceable contract. (Graw et.al 2015)
Now, the presence of legal intention is analyzed on the basis of relationship that is captured amid
the parties, that is:
i. Family/friendly/domestic relations- When the parties are sharing the relationship
which is amicable in nature, then, the parties are considered to be in the mindset
which portrays that they do not wish to take legal recourse on the incurrence of
conflicts amid the contractual parties. In Woodward v Johnston [1992], the wife
decided to assist her spouse in business and in return the husband will provide 10% of
the same. Later the husband refused. The court held that the relationship of a wife-
husband is coordinal and family in nature and there should be no doubt that they are
not having any legal intention and thus such kinds of contracts have no legal sanctity.
ii. Commercial/business relations- When the parties are sharing commercial
relationship, then, there are no friendly terms amid the parties. Rather, the parties are
commercially dealing with each other and the law has made the presumption that
there is no legal intention. In Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and
Excise [1976], Esso agreed to gave cons to the motorist who purchased its business
and teh court held that there was legal intention to be bound by the same. (Graw et.al
2015)

3
Rebuttable of presumption – The above submissions are the general presumptions that are laid
down by the courts with the passage of time. But, the rules are not strict and it is found in Todd v
Nicol [1957]. In the given case, Mrs Nicol requested her sister in law and niece too live with her
and later will transfer the house in their name. The plaintiff’s move from Scotland on the pretext
of the promise made by Mrs Nicole. The court held that the parties are in domestic relationship
but still have the circumstances which portrays that the parties have legal intention.
Likewise, even if the parties are found to be in marketable relationship, but, if the circumstances
portray so, then, it is not necessary that there should be lawful intention and at times the
promises are not enforceable in law. (Graw et.al 2015)
Now,
Apart from legal intention, another element that is required to make any contract enforceable is
consideration. The price which is paid for the other persons promise is called consideration In
Thomas v Thomas (1842), following the wish of Mrs Thomas, the house was allowed to be
occupied for 1 pound per year and the consideration was held valid. It is from the promisee from
which the consideration is moved and which results in the enforceability of the promises in law.
Some of the fundamental principles with respect to consideration includes: (Graw et.al 2015)
i. Consider ion should not be supporting any past promises but must be for the future or
present promises. In Stylk v Myrick (1809), there was no consideration that was given
by crew for the promise made by the captain and thus the promise was not
enforceable;
ii. The sufficiency of consideration is relevant to make it valid and is held in Thomas v
Thomas (1842);
So, the contract which is made in the absence of consideration has no sanctity in law. Such
contracts are informal in nature and in order to convert it in formal contract, it is necessary that
there should be valid consideration.
Application
It is assumed that there is presence of offer and acceptance between Curtis and Jasmine. Now, a
valid contract can only be made amid the parties provided the consideration and lawful intention
also exists.
Now, Jasmine and Curtis met. They are linked through LinkedIn. The issue is now resolved.
Curtis is need of help from Jasmine to revive her business as she was facing a downfall because
of online business. Jasmine agreed to help Curtis. Jasmine presented a brief outline to Curtis and
suggested that if Curtis will follow the brief outline then the business will have a great increase.
Curtis follows the plan of Jasmine. It was also agreed amid the parties that jasmine will keep on
helping Curtis in every 15 days in every four months. $600 is to be paid for every session. Also,
free hand was provided to Jasmine to put the marketing material together. Jasmine was very
happy to receive free hand and thus agreed.
Now, it is submitted that the association that is established amid Curtis and Jasmine emphasis
that they both are intending to comply with the arrangement that is made amid them legally.
Curtis agreed to pay $600 to Jasmine only if jasmine will provide fortnight advice and free hand
is provided. The promises that are made amid them have supporting consideration.

4
Also, the promises that are exchanged amid them are made with all legal intention. Though they
are sharing a cordial relationship, but, the promises that are made by them have a lawful mindset.
Thus, there is legal relationship amid the parties.
Conclusion
So, there is presence of consideration and legal intention between Curtis and Jasmine and so
there a enforceable contract amid the parties.
Solution 2
Issue
Whether there is existence of the elements of an offer and acceptance between Curtis and
Jasmine to make an enforceable contract?
Rule
A contract is a kind of accord which has the legal consent. A contract can be made only when all
the elements required for the arrangement of contract is present. An agreement (offer and
acceptance) by parties who are capable to perform with lawful mindset along with benefit called
consideration results in a contract and is evaluated in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
In Carlill case, an offer was made by a unilateral offer (advertisement) by the company according
to which whosoever comply with the terms mentioned in the advertisement and still suffers from
influenza then $1000 is already deposited in the bank. Now, the plaintiff performed the acts
mentioned in the advertisement but still suffered from influenza. The court held that the offer
was accepted by performance and thus there is a valid contract amid the parties. The deposit of
money in the bank ensures the intention of the company that they wish to comply with the offer
on compliance of the acceptance terms (Graw et.al 2015)
Now, it is assumed that there is presence of a consideration and legal intention and thus it is
important to evaluate the presence of offer and acceptance.
Any person who is making the offer is an offeror and the person who is confirming the offer is
an acceptance.
To establish any relationship of contractual basis, the primary ingredient that is needed is an
offer. An offer is a kind of statement which portrays and depicts the intention and willingness to
contract. An offer is an assurance that is provided by an offeror to an offeree to fulfill with the
conditions of the offer. It is the choice of the offeror to make the offer to world, to individual or
to specific group and is held in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. As per Gibbsons v Proctor
(1891) communication of offer is must in order to consider the same as enforceable. (Graw et.al
2015)
In Partridge v Crittenden [1968], an advertisement is an invitation to treat. It is a statement to
start negotiation with the interested buyers who themselves are making offers to the advertiser.
Now,
Any actions or statements consenting to offer are an acceptance in law. There must be meeting of
minds and the acceptance must be identical to the terms of the offer and is analyzed in Felthouse
v Bindley (1862). Generally there is no particular form in which an acceptance can be made, that
ism it can be made by actions, words, etc, but it is important that the offeror must come in the
notice of the acceptance to consider the same as binding and is evaluated in Entores Ltd v Miles

5
Far Eastern Corp [1955]. When the receipt is made by fax, then, the acceptance is completed
when the fax is received and is discussed in N M Superannuation Pty Ltd v Baker (1992).But, in
Adams v Lindsell (1818), the communication is considered to be complete when the when the
acceptance is made by post and when the letter is posted.
At time, when no acceptance is made, but new terms are included in the acceptance, then, it is an
invalid acceptance and is called a counter offer. It is a new offer which cancels the old offer and
analysed in Hyde v Wrench [1840].
Application
Now, it is assumed that there is presence of a consideration and legal intention and thus it is
important to evaluate the presence of offer and acceptance. Jasmine and Curtis met. They are
linked through LinkedIn. The issue is now resolved.
There are various instances that depicts that Curtis has made a valid offer to jasmine and also
specified several terms of the offer to which Jasmine must gave her assent.
Curtis intention of making an offer can be analyzed from the fact that Curtis approached jasmine
has told her about the problems of online purchasing that is faced by her. At this time there was
no offer that was made by Curtis, but, they agree to meet in future.
When they again met, then, Jasmine submitted a draft to Curtis and specified that by applying the
draft the business can be increased. Curtis at this stage offer to Jasmine that if Jasmine will help
Curtis in every 15 days for next 4 months they Curtis will pay $600 for every session. Also,
Jasmine will be provided a free hand. These terms which are communicated by Curtis to Jasmine
are the offer terms.
The offer is complete as Curtis has communicated the same to Jasmine directly by words and the
same are reached in the mind of Jasmine. So, the offer is compete.
Now, the offer which was made by Curtis to Jasmine is readily affirmed by Jasmine. Jasmine
apart from sending the oral conformation also sends an email in which all offer terms were
provided and the acceptance of Jasmine was also mentioned. The acceptance is valid and is
enforceable as per Entores Ltd v Miles Far Eastern Corp as the acceptance is made by jasmine
and is reached in the minds of Curtis.
Conclusion
There is incidence of an offer and acceptance by both Curtis and Jasmine. A valid offer is made
by Curtis which is received by Jasmine and in return the offer is affirmed by Jasmine and which
was also communicated to Curtis and thus the promises are valid and enforceable resulting in a
binding contractual relationship.

6
Reference List
Books/Articles/Journals
Graw, S, David Parker, Keturah Whitford, Elfriede SangKuh and Christina Do. 2015.
Understanding Business Law. 3rd Edition. Lexis Nexis.
Case laws
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
Entores Ltd v Miles Far Eastern Corp [1955]
Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1976] 1 All ER 117.
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.
Gibbsons v Proctor (1891).
Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90
N M Superannuation Pty Ltd v Baker (1992).
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421
Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72
Thomas v Thomas (1842) QB 851 .
Stylk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317.
Woodward v Johnston [1992] 2 Qd R 214.