On the 10th of September an offer was distinguished between Huddersford Electronics Ltd (HE ltd) and Gem Computer Stores (GCS). The offer was an invitation to treat as there is an entitlement that an offer could accepted and therefore, a contract could be formed. An offer is formed as HE ltd posted an offer to sell 10 laptops to GCS, keeping the offer open until the 24th September. A statement is made by HE ltd who is giving information to GCS expressing an intention to sell something in the future. For example, in Harvey v Facey, there was an offer agreeing to buy the pen for £900. This was because information was requested and sent. However, there was no acceptance. Similarly, GCS has just received information, but have yet not agreed to accept the offer. Furthermore, in this case an offer is distinguished from a mere puff as a statement is made by its nature which is yet not intended to have legal relations. Moreover, the case of Partridge v Crittenden illustrates that there was an invitation to treat to induce an offer which hereby made party b make an offer. In relation, HE Ltd have advertised and induced an offer to GCS to make an offer. Furthermore, on the 20th September the GCS manager forms an enquiry which HE ltd responded respectively. This was just a further enquiry which means that more information has been supplied to GCS. GCS requested for information and some further information was provided back to them as a response.
However, on the 22nd of September, Bertie had some concerns assuming that GCS might have some financial concerns, and therefore, sold the laptop to a third party, Argon Electrics. Previously, on the 20th of September, GCS contacted HE Ltd for further enquiries which means that this was a request for further information. A statement was made by the offeree and is interpreted as asking for further information about the offer as opposed to trying to verify the terms of the offer. This means this is not a counter offer which concludes that the offer cannot be terminated. This is illustrated in the case Stevenson v Mclean. The defendant was in breach of contract as the claimant had a question for a request for information as opposed to a counter offer. Furthermore, Bertie didn’t even communicate with Gemma letting her know of the current case. He should have alerted her straight away of the changed plans. In addition, communication can revolve to revocation of offer which would have been suitable, however, Bertie, did not do this and had therefore, dug a deeper hole for himself. The main issue here is that HE Ltd held an offer to GCS which couldn’t be terminated, however, they sold the laptops to a third party. This means that they are in a breach of contract.
On the 23rd of September Gemma posted a letter to HE Ltd, accepting the offer to sell the laptops at £300 each. At this point a contract was formed. Due to Gemma accepting the offer a legally binding contract is formed. The contract was formed as soon as the letter of acceptance was posted through to the mailbox. Additionally, on the 10th of September HE Ltd offered GCS to respond to the offer until the 24th of September. The acceptance of the offer took place on the 23rd which is one day before the deadline. Therefore, the acceptance was valid as the requirement of registered or recorded delivery was for the benefit of the offeree. This is illustrated in the case of Yates Building Co v Pulleyn & Sons. This case is very similar as the claimant sent a letter of acceptance on the 30th April which was before the deadline date. The acceptance was valid. In addition, another illustration of the postal is in the case Adams v Lindsell. In this case the acceptance was also valid and the defendants were in breach of contract. The acceptance is now unconditional which means that any introduction of new terms after the contract is now formed will be construed as a counter offer.
The letter of acceptance arrived on...