Both parties entered into a legally binding contract. The legal issue is a breach of contract. For a contract to be legitimate, it must have the following three elements; an offer must be made; there must be acceptance, and finally there must be consideration.
The defendant entered into a legal agreement with the plaintiffs, Jackson Boris and Klara Koop. The defendant made an offer to pay the plaintiffs £20,000 and £30,000 respectively, give Jackson a case of Cristal champagne, a bicycle and two tickets to the gala concert and the defendant accepted the offer. The consideration was the work that the plaintiffs did. The plaintiff upheld his end except for the payment of Jackson’s £20,000 and Klara’s £30,000.
Law on the issue
A contract is a binding accord among two or more people. A contract is the promise or set of promises for breach of which the law provides a solution and the feat of which the law recognizes as a duty. All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. This is because a contract imposes upon the parties legally obligations (Kammen, 1989). The defendant Potluck breached the provisions of the contract and in turn became liable in a law court. There are diverse ways in which liability in tort may arise;
Liability arises as a legal consequence of a person’s act, or of his omission if he is under a legal duty to act. The law requires damage resulting to the plaintiff because of the defendants conduct to result in a tort. However, in some cases as trespass and label proof of actual damage is not required (American Law Institute, 1937). Potluck made a reasonable offer, which the plaintiffs accepted. The law states that an offer can be oral printed or may be drawn in from the circumstances of the offer. An offer must be specific or definite so that the offeree may truly understand the intention of the offeror and consider his response there to, Scammel and Nephew Ltd. V. Ouston (1941) (American Law Institute, 1937). The offers that the defendant made meet these thresholds.
A person cannot have accepted an offer with such conditions: Nevertheless, in Stevens v. Mclean (1880), the court emphasized that; an offeror must clarify a vague offer if asked. The defendant, Potluck in this case made an exceptionally clear offer to the plaintiffs. Therefore, he must abide by the contract. However, an offer can be terminated based on a circumstance or state of affairs on hand lapses if the circumstance or state of affairs fails to materialize. These are referred to as provisional offers as was the case in Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) (Cataldo, 1967). Acceptance way made by the plaintiffs. According to the law, this is the exterior manifestation of consent by the offeree. By acceptance, an accord comes into existence between the parties. Acceptance takes place at an extremely skewed moment when the minds of the parties meet, that is, Consensus ad idem. An agreement comes into existence at this moment.
In this case, consideration is something, which is of value in the eyes of the law, stirring from the plaintiff: It may be some benefit to the defendant, or some detriment to the plaintiff but, at all events, it must be moving from the plaintiff as per Patteson. J, Thomas v Thomas (1842). Executed consideration is constituted by something done by the plaintiff because of a promise made by the defendant. It is a valid consideration to support a contractual claim.
Consideration must be sufficient, but it need not be adequate. The laws on consideration were formed based on St Lk V. Myrick (1809) And Ilk V. Myrick (1809). In the course of the voyage from London to the Baltic, two seamen deserted, and a captain, having unsuccessfully attempted to find replacements at the Croneladt, entered into an agreement with the rest of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document