Common Law: Postal Rule
Table of Contents: Page Number
Outcome-1………………………………………………………………….3
Outcome-2………………………………………………………………….5
Outcome-3………………………………………………………………….6
Outcome-4………………………………………………………………….8
Bibliography………………………………………………………………...10
Outcome 1:
Before describing Bill and James legal position according to their activities, the formation of a contract has given below in Figure 1:
[pic]
By the formation of contract, the legal position of Bill and James has been analysed as following:
Invitation to Treat:
When Bill said to James, “I may be prepared to buy ten televisions from you for £2000”. Then the statement of Bill is an invitation to treat for using in bill’s statement ‘I may be prepared to buy’. According to Givson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294: there was no binding contract because there never was an offer made by the Council. The Council’s letter stating that it ‘may be prepared to sell’ was merely an invitation to treat.
Offer:
Offer should to be clear and certain. James replied, “I will sell you the ten television sets for £2500.” Here James statement was clear and certain. So it is an offer. According to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): The advertisement in this case was held to be a unilateral offer because there was a clear prescribed act.
An offer needs to be communicated, orally or written. Without communication, offer is not valid. According to Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329: An offer has no validity unless and until it is communicated to the offeree so as to give the offeree the opportunity to accept or reject it. Here it seems the offer of James has been communicated. So the offer of James is valid.
Counter Offer:
In Bill’s and Jame’s statements, there has not been made counter offer. If Bill’s statement would clear and certain then Bill’s statement could be offer and James statement could be counter offer. And after that the same day James rejected to
Outcome-1………………………………………………………………….3
Outcome-2………………………………………………………………….5
Outcome-3………………………………………………………………….6
Outcome-4………………………………………………………………….8
Bibliography………………………………………………………………...10
Outcome 1:
Before describing Bill and James legal position according to their activities, the formation of a contract has given below in Figure 1:
[pic]
By the formation of contract, the legal position of Bill and James has been analysed as following:
Invitation to Treat:
When Bill said to James, “I may be prepared to buy ten televisions from you for £2000”. Then the statement of Bill is an invitation to treat for using in bill’s statement ‘I may be prepared to buy’. According to Givson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294: there was no binding contract because there never was an offer made by the Council. The Council’s letter stating that it ‘may be prepared to sell’ was merely an invitation to treat.
Offer:
Offer should to be clear and certain. James replied, “I will sell you the ten television sets for £2500.” Here James statement was clear and certain. So it is an offer. According to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): The advertisement in this case was held to be a unilateral offer because there was a clear prescribed act.
An offer needs to be communicated, orally or written. Without communication, offer is not valid. According to Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329: An offer has no validity unless and until it is communicated to the offeree so as to give the offeree the opportunity to accept or reject it. Here it seems the offer of James has been communicated. So the offer of James is valid.
Counter Offer:
In Bill’s and Jame’s statements, there has not been made counter offer. If Bill’s statement would clear and certain then Bill’s statement could be offer and James statement could be counter offer. And after that the same day James rejected to