Discussion essay (Law)

Being a non-native English speaker I have been very fortunate to be presented with an opportunity to write a discussion essay on Contracts subject. This is my first essay on law subject; I don't feel confident.

I feel I have made a number of grammar errors in my writing. So, if anyone can obvious errors or even funny errors please let me know.

Your comments and suggestions will be very much appreciated.

===

A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more parties that is intended to be legally binding. The essential elements of a contract are: offer, acceptance, consideration (not required for contracts under seal), intention to be bound, mutuality, capacity and legality. Graw (2002 p. 34)

In my opinion, the elements of offer, acceptance and intent to be bound present the main issues to this case. Therefore, the discussion, essentially, will be on these three elements.

An agreement consists of an offer and acceptance. At least two parties are required; one of them, the offeror, makes an offer which the other, the offeree, accepts. Moreover, there should be a strong promise or intent that will become binding on the offeror as soon as it is accepted by the offeree. Graw (2002 p. 25)

Wen’s promise to sell laptops to Jo

Wen mailed a letter to Jo clearly stating and outlining the terms and conditions of his promise. So, there was a promise on Wen’s part.

To distinguish an offer from a mere supply of information, see: v Facey [1893] AC 552 Privy Council

For an invitation to treat: Pharmaceutical Society (GB) v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1952] 2 QB 795.

The decision was endorsed in Fisher v [1961] 1 QB 394. Lord Parker (at 399):

"It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract."

Wen’s intention to honour his promise

It can be argued that Wen’s promise offering to sell the laptops to Jo was not necessarily legally binding at the time when Wen mailed his letter. However, because of the previous course of dealings between Jo and Wen, and because Wen facsimiled a letter to Jo the following day to revoke his offer, and telephoned Jo on the 19th of March to confirm the cancellation of his offer, there was a presumption that the contract would be carried out as agreed.

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 High Court (at 457):

"what is alleged to be an offer should have been intended to give rise, on the doing of the act, to an obligation … in the absence of such an intention, actual or imputed, the alleged ‘offer’ cannot lead to a contract: there, indeed, in such a case no true ‘offer’."

Communication of Wen’s offer

An offer must be communicated to the offeree before it can be accepted. Graw (2002, p. 48).

Wen mailed his offer to Jo responding to her enquiry. Jo had received and immediately replied to Wen’s letter. There’s no doubt about Wen’s offer was properly communicated in this case.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified acceptance of the terms of an offer. To make a binding contract the acceptance must exactly match the offer. The offeree or an authorised agent acting on offeree's behalf must accept all the terms of the offer. Graw (2002, p. 67), Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 case.

Jo's acceptance

On March 19th Jo received Wen’s letter and immediately responded agreeing to his offer herself. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334

Furthermore, Jo agreed to all terms and conditions outlined in Wen's offer and communicated her acceptance via mail. In this case, the postal rule applies. The postal rule states that the acceptance will be complete as soon as the letter is properly posted. This rule was formulated in v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 case.

I think Jo acted within the guidelines of [...] when she responed to Wen's letter. Effectively, accepting Wen's offer.

Revocation of Wen's Offer

The revocation of an offer must take place before the offer is accepted by the party to whom the offer was intended. The withdrawal of the offer is ineffective until it arrives. Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148; 100 ER 502 .

Just like an offer itself, a revocation of the offer must be properly communicated. The revocation can be communicated by various means. All that is required is that the offeree becomes aware of that the offer has been withdrawn. Graw (2002, p. 54),

Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344

v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463

Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (at 32)

Lord Hershell: "[a revocation] can be no effectual than the offer itself, unless brought to the mind of the person whom the offer is made".

From the given facts we know Wen had facsimiled a letter to Jo revoking his offer before Jo received the letter and replied to it. Therefore, there was no offer at the time when Jo replied to Wen’s letter and hence, there was no acceptance.

It could had been argued that Jo had no knowledge of Wen’s offer withdrawl. Due to the fault in her facsimile machine the letter she received was unreadable.

I think it is reasonable to assume that most businesses operate fully functional appliances. In addition, facsimile was an acceptable means of communication between the two parties.

In my opinion, there was no contract between Wen and Jo in this case.

References

Graw, S 2002, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, Lawbook Co, Sydney

e's behalf must accept all the terms of the offer. Graw (2002, p. 67), Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 case.

Jo's acceptance

On March 19th Jo received Wen’s letter and immediately responded agreeing to his offer herself. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334

Furthermore, Jo agreed to all terms and conditions outlined in Wen's offer and communicated her acceptance via mail. In this case, the postal rule applies. The postal rule states that the acceptance will be complete as soon as the letter is properly posted. This rule was formulated in v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 case.

I think Jo acted within the guidelines of [...] when she responed to Wen's letter. Effectively, accepting Wen's offer.

Revocation of Wen's Offer

The revocation of an offer must take place before the offer is accepted by the party to whom the offer was intended. The withdrawal of the offer is ineffective until it arrives. Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148; 100 ER 502 .

Just like an offer itself, a revocation of the offer must be properly communicated. The revocation can be communicated by various means. All that is required is that the offeree becomes aware of that the offer has been withdrawn. Graw (2002, p. 54),

Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344

v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463

Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (at 32)

Lord Hershell: "[a revocation] can be no effectual than the offer itself, unless brought to the mind of the person whom the offer is made".

From the given facts we know Wen had facsimiled a letter to Jo revoking his offer before Jo received the letter and replied to it. Therefore, there was no offer at the time when Jo replied to Wen’s letter and hence, there was no acceptance.

It could had been argued that Jo had no knowledge of Wen’s offer withdrawl. Due to the fault in her facsimile machine the letter she received was unreadable.

I think it is reasonable to assume that most businesses operate fully functional appliances. In addition, facsimile was an acceptable means of communication between the two parties.

In my opinion, there was no contract between Wen and Jo in this case.

References

Graw, S 2002, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, Lawbook Co, Sydney