Comprehensive Analysis of Contract, Tort, and Agency Law Issues

This assignment analyzes a problem scenario involving contract, tort, and agency law. It begins by defining key elements of contract law, such as offer and acceptance, and examines the validity of an advertisement as an offer, considering the postal rule and its implications. The analysis then addresses negligence claims arising from an accident, focusing on duty of care, breach of duty, and causation, including the classification of victims and types of damages. Finally, the assignment explores agency law, examining the relationship between a principal, agent, and third party, and the validity of contracts made by agents. The assignment concludes with an overview of the key legal principles involved, including unilateral offers, the postal rule, and the concept of negligence, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues presented in the scenario.

Problem Scenario
The contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties creating mutual
obligations enforceable by law. If the agreement does not meet the legal
requirements, it cannot be considered as a valid contract. The following scenario
includes various contract law, tort and agency issues. Each of the issues will be
addressed in turn in order to advise on the law of the contract concerned. Offer is
one of the elements that make for a valid contract. The offer can be money or
another thing of value in exchange for performance by the other party (McKendrick,
Contract Law, 9th ed., p.27). Furthermore, silence or failure to act cannot constitute a
valid acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley 1862). In this scenario, Caption Holt places
the advert in the media to sale the cruiser. By listing the advertisement for the cruiser
in a media, where people who are interesting in the offer are able to view it, the offer
is valid. The first consideration in this scenario is who is responsible for not arriving
the post from Charles sent to Captain Holt. To determine this, one must consider
whether the advertisement was a unilateral offer. First, the advertisement for a boat
that sells he has an address for contacting. By that information, those who have
seen the ad can clearly see through the advertisement that Holt is willing to sign a
binding contract. However, a unilateral offer may arise when one party, or the other
parties, promises to pay the performance of the other, that is, a conditional
commitment. Holt had made an offer to the whole world and it would be liable to
anyone who came forward and performed the required conditions. (Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Bell Co,1893) Consideration should be given to acceptance and postal
regulations in connection with the undelivered mail sent by Charles. Acceptance is
the final acceptance of the terms of the offer and the offeree must accept all aspects
of the offer. Generally, postal rules are used to resolve disputes if formal
communication is not received or if a post is delayed. This is a set of principles that
allows the court to prove that a contract has been established or has not been
finalized at a certain point in time, even though the proposal has not received formal
communication. Also, postal rules are another way to accept proposals. A set of
rules that apply whenever an acceptance notification is mailed and used to resolve
suspicious disputes over the effect of passing a proposal. Adams v Lindsell's case-
the basic principle of this decision is that communication of acceptance of the

proposal takes effect after it is published by the defendant, not when the proposal is
published by the proposal. This principle approves a party to still have rights to
enforceable contracts even if procedural issues are delayed beyond control. If a
proposal disposes of a product or service at a later date without waiting for a
reasonable period of time for confirmation, it may be held liable when the
confirmation arrives at a later stage. It may be reasonable to use a post if the parties
are at a considerable distance from each other, but there is no need to start
negotiations. The postal rule will only apply when it is reasonable to use the post
(Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27). Since the Post Office acts as an agent for the
recipient, it is claimed that once the agent receives the letter, it constitutes a valid
delivery of the acceptance. It was suggested that the postal rules only apply when it
is appropriate to use a post. The justification is that the defendant posted his
acceptance, so that he or she can rely on the employee to fulfil his procedural
obligations in accordance with the rules governing the contract. A better way to view
post rules in the light of their justification is that when a letter is posted, the offer
cannot cancel the offer. The defendant changes his vow to the offer, taking into
account the fact that he has complied with all the reasonable requests required when
he receives the offer. In this case, if the publisher publishes, if the proposal is not
published, and the proposal is not published, the acceptance of the proposal
delivered by the publication is valid. This further strengthens the proposition's
responsibility to allow delay or unfair disposal in connection with contract
negotiations conducted by post offices by mail. Therefore, Charles could argue that
the mail should be accepted even if it did not arrive under Adams vs Lindsell. Now
that the responsibilities have been identified, it is necessary to review individual
claims. However, Advertising is organised under contract law as an invitation to treat.
In Partridge v Crittenden, a defendant who was charged with "offering for sale
protected birds"—bramble finch cocks and hens that he had advertised for sale in a
newspaper—was not offering to sell them. The reason why is the person making the
advertisement may find himself in a situation where he would be contractually
obliged to sell more goods than he actually owned. In certain circumstances called
unilateral contracts, an advertisement can be an offer; as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company, where it was held that the defendants, who advertised that they
would pay to anyone who sniffed a smoke ball in the prescribed manner and yet

caught influenza, were contractually obliged to pay to whomever accepted it by
performing the required acts. A display of goods for sale in a shop window or within a
shop is an invitation to treat. Thus, the shop owner is not obliged to sell the goods,
even if signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display (Fisher V Bell 1960).
Also, if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged
to sell it for that amount. For an offer to be capable of becoming binding on
acceptance, the offer must be definite, clear, and objectively intended to be capable
of acceptance. Furthermore, an offer is rejected if the offeree attempts to accept
subject to certain conditions and makes a counter-offer (Hyde v Wrench 1840).
Thus, although Charles sent a post at the price stated in the advertisement and did
not arrive, his contract is valid as in Adams v Lindsell, but Rosa made an offer to Holt
as another alternative as a counter-offer at a price higher than the suggested price
and he can accept it by Hyde v wrench. Now that where liability rests have been
established, the individual claims need to be considered. The potential negligence
claims all stem from Hitchcock's failure to focus on driving while driving. To assess
the claims, it first needs to be established if a duty of care was owed (Caparo
industries v Dickman 1990), that this was breached (Blyth &Blyth v Carillion1966)
and that this caused the harm. In this scenario, the accident happened when the
child suddenly jumped onto the road and the taxi driver Hitchcock hurt Amy on the
pavement while avoiding it. According to the scenario, the taxi driver, Hitchcock, did
not focus on driving while driving. However, in order for claims of negligence to be
made practicable, certain basic prerequisites must be established. Failing is
essentially related to compensating people who have been hurt by others'
carelessness. If an obligation to care cannot be established and cannot be seen as
existing in each situation of interest, it is not necessary to recognize the rest of the
element of negligence. However, just because he failed to focus on driving is a
causal problem. While this does not completely negate the injured person's claims, it
will limit the damage on the principle of negligence of contribution. Losses can
involve personal financial damage or suffering. The pain and suffering of more
information damage can in turn be divided into two categories of economic damage
that can be explained in terms of monetary value and non-economic damage. Amy is
classified as the primary victim because she witnessed all the accidents and hurt her
back in an accident caused by Hitchcock. However, although Amy witnessed the

accident, it is difficult to be classified as a secondary victim because she was in an
accident.
Also, economic losses were incurred if the accident prevented them from going to
work. Amy can claim damages related to physical injury under Caparo v Dickman.
To assert this, it is necessary to check whether an accident was predictable before a
reasonable care obligation exists. First, Amy can prove that she has an obligation to
take care of herself because she was in pavement. Also, with regard to economic
losses, it is obligatory to be careful not to injure one's or other's property. Finally, in
the scenario, Rosa paid the boat's price to Gina, the owner of captain Holt's shop
next door. Gina gave Rosa a new boat and Holt didn't know about it. This is against
the law of Agency. Holt has granted Gina the right to be an agent and as a third party
may carry out the contract on behalf of Holt. However, implied or implied by the
nature of the relationship, which is not specifically stated as an agent, is deemed to
have been granted to the agent if the agent or agent requires authority to perform
other specified duties or responsibilities. Gina's relationship with Holt is not the case,
and therefore the contract cannot be carried out as an agent's qualification. An agent
will be bound to a contract signed on his behalf and may be held liable if he or she
suffers injury or property damage. Therefore, Rosa and Holt can claim responsibility
for this to Gina. In addition, the contract may be invalid because Holt was not aware
of the contract as a false statement by Rosa. (Misrepresentation Act 1967)
In this scenario, if a proposal was invited to accept the proposal by providing
performance, further notice was found not needed to form acceptance unless
otherwise stated in the proposed contract formed by that proposal.
Advertising is generally a unilateral offer, which is an invitation to treat, and the seller
is not obliged to sell at the quoted price. In addition, there are various ways of
dialogue of acceptance, and the letter is a valid proposal even if it is not arrived or
delayed. And another suggestion can be offered in the proposal, which may be
rejected. In order to determine the illegality of carelessness, factors such as the duty
and predictability of care must be considered. This is a neighbor's principle and can
be checked for predictability. In addition, injuries of accidents can be divided
mentally, economically and physically, and can be divided into primary and
secondary victims. Also, if some people are not directly involved in an accident but
witness it and have suffered mental damage, they can claim damage. Finally, the

law of agency consists of the principal, agent, and the third-party relationship, and if
the principal gives the agent authority, the agent can make a contract with the third
party. This must be authorized directly unless the relationship is implicitly known, and
it cannot be a valid contract.

Reference
 Finch, E. and Fafinski, S. (2018). Contract law. 6th ed. London: Pearson
Education Limited.
 Glannon, J. (n.d.). The law of torts. 5th ed. wolterskluwer.
 Munday, R. (2016). Agency. Law and principles. 3rd, rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press (GBP).