Applying Angie's Case
QUESTION 1
A) When Angie put an advertisement online it was in fact a Invitation to treat - This is not an offer. It is a statement made to another person inviting them to make an offer (e.g. goods displayed in a shop window). An invitation to treat cannot be accepted. A person who responds to an invitation to treat is in fact making an offer, which the other party can accept or reject. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash
B) In the scenario, the offer is made by james. The terms stated by james to angie express a willingness to be bound and enter a contract as the language is definitive and inviting angie to respond to the offer when James offers to help angie if she reduces the price on the painting. R v Clarke . Angie, in turn has …show more content…
The law for email communication is encapsulated under Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW). Under Section 13 (1) - If an electronic communication enters an information system then the dispatch of the communication occurs when it enters that system. As a result, the email from mark to angies constitutes acceptance and applies as soon as the email is received. The fact that Angie only provided an email address as the only form of communication means that she intended to be bound by email communication. Therefore Angie is legally bounded from the email sent by mark on the 15th of March and must sell the painting to …show more content…
In return Vince promises the safety of the bedside upon arrival. Had the term been incorporated into the written contact there would have been a breach of a condition based on the importance Angie places on the item. However according to the Parol evidence rule, when a written agreement is present, the court does not consider alterations or additions to a contract such as verbal promises made before the written agreement was signed, as is the case with Angie and Vince’s communication. Due to the loss of value and importance of the bedside table, the damage inflicted would be deemed as a breach of warranty rather than a breach of a condition. Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (N.S.W.) Ltd
A) When Angie put an advertisement online it was in fact a Invitation to treat - This is not an offer. It is a statement made to another person inviting them to make an offer (e.g. goods displayed in a shop window). An invitation to treat cannot be accepted. A person who responds to an invitation to treat is in fact making an offer, which the other party can accept or reject. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash
B) In the scenario, the offer is made by james. The terms stated by james to angie express a willingness to be bound and enter a contract as the language is definitive and inviting angie to respond to the offer when James offers to help angie if she reduces the price on the painting. R v Clarke . Angie, in turn has …show more content…
The law for email communication is encapsulated under Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW). Under Section 13 (1) - If an electronic communication enters an information system then the dispatch of the communication occurs when it enters that system. As a result, the email from mark to angies constitutes acceptance and applies as soon as the email is received. The fact that Angie only provided an email address as the only form of communication means that she intended to be bound by email communication. Therefore Angie is legally bounded from the email sent by mark on the 15th of March and must sell the painting to …show more content…
In return Vince promises the safety of the bedside upon arrival. Had the term been incorporated into the written contact there would have been a breach of a condition based on the importance Angie places on the item. However according to the Parol evidence rule, when a written agreement is present, the court does not consider alterations or additions to a contract such as verbal promises made before the written agreement was signed, as is the case with Angie and Vince’s communication. Due to the loss of value and importance of the bedside table, the damage inflicted would be deemed as a breach of warranty rather than a breach of a condition. Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (N.S.W.) Ltd