1. L letter to purchase M van for £3,500 can be construed as an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat cannot be accepted as it is not an offer. (Gibson v Man city). If this is the case than there is no contract and L is not entitled to claim damages. However, because the content of L letter is not readily available, the facts presented suggest that it was an offer to purchase M van for £ 3500.
2. Following the decision in Day Morris associates v Voyce (2003)which emphasized that acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer. Therefore, a valid contract existed as offer and accepted was made (storer v Man city). The offer was accepted –according to the general rules of contact the offer was communicated to the offeree and acceptance of the offer communicated to the offeror. (Lord Denning in Entores). Note it was accepted in a communication method which was reasonable.(Quenerduaine V. Cole (1883)).
3. Since L deleted the message, it can be argued that the acceptance was not effectively communicated. However, following Brickibon ltd v. Stahag stal communication of acceptance is effective at the time and place where it was received. Furthermore Lord Denning in Entores stated that if the offeror was at fault for not receiving the acceptance and the offeree honestly believes it was accepted then a valid contact exist.
4. Since a the offer was initially accepted, the subsequent offers should be void since the initial offer was not terminated by rejection, revocation, a counter offer, death or non existence of the subject matter. Thus the subsequent offer and acceptance of £4,000 would not matter as the van had already been sold to L for 3500.
5. By selling the van to a third party M is in breach of contract with L. L is entitled to sue for damages.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document