Dim and Kim were interested in buying an oven from Siti who had two such ovens since she was closing down her business. Siti wrote to Kim offering the oven at $500 and said she would keep the offer open for 7 days. - THIS IS AN OFFER – OBJECTIVE TEST – CARLILL V CARBOLIC... VALID FOR 7 DAYS BUT CAN BE REVOKED AT ANYTIME BEFORE ACCEPTANCE – ROUTLEDGE V GRANT – NO CONSIDERATION PROVIDED BY KIM TO KEEP OFFER OPEN.- After 3 days, Siti wrote to say that she had gotten a better offer from magoo and that kim could have the oven if she could match the offer. IS SITI'S ORIGINAL OFFER STILL VALID? THIS IS A REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL OFFER – BANQUE DE PRIBAS... THE ORIGINAL OFFER NO LONGER EXIST... Kim replied by letter accepting the original offer SHE CANNOT DO SO... IT DOES NOT EXIST and insisted on getting the oven at $500 as she was within the 7 day period. Siti ignored Kim's reply and sold the oven to Magoo. THERE IS THUS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN SITI AND KIM
Meanwhile Dim and Siti made a verbal agreement A VERBAL AGREEMENT CAN STILL BE A CONTRACT IF THE INGREDIENTS ARE PRESENT... that Dim would buy the other oven for $490 would take delivery 7 days later. HERE THERE IS AN OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE... AGREEMENT IS PRESENT... IS THERE CONSIDERATION? YES, EXECUTORY. THERE IS AN EXCHANGE OF PROMISES... A BENEFIT FOR BOTH PARTIES – THERE IS ALSO INTENTION AS IT IS A COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT – EDWARTD V SKYWAYS - When Dim came to pay and collect the oven 7 days later, Siti refused to hand over the oven telling hthat the price was now $550. Dim called Siti a cheat and wants to sue her. SITI IS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT
Advise whether Siti is legally liable to either Kim or Dim for breach of contract.
Siti V Kim
Please join StudyMode to read the full document