Why Is Mr Madison And Council Tenant He Want To Purchase A Council House

Task 4
Scenario 1
Mr Madison, council tenant he applied to purchase his own council house from the tenant and he also had a letter from the Edinburgh city council saying that they might be prepared to sell the house for 2180.00. Mr Madison said that the path to the house was in a bad state and questioned the price they had stated. Mr. Madison then learned from the council that the price cannot be changed as it has been fixed according to the condition of the property.
Mr Madison wrote in to the council again requesting to proceed with the application process on the 18th of March in 1971. Since the political control of the council changed 2 months later, it resulted in ending the policy to sell the council house.
Mr Madison claimed that when
He offered to purchase the horse and claimed that if there is no response by the weekend the horse will considered his. The horse was then sold by mistake at auction. The auctioneer had forgotten the request on not to sell the horse. The uncle commenced with proceedings against the auctioneer for conversion. The action depended upon whether a valid contract was made between the nephew and the uncle. Since there was no acceptance of the contract, the court decided that Felthouse did not have any ownership over the horse. Acceptance between the parties should be communicated loudly and clearly and cannot be imposed because of no response from one of the parties. The uncle is not entitled to impose a sale through silence whereby the contract would only fail by disapproval. Even though the nephew expressed interest in completing the deal, there was not any clear communication of that
made and sold The Carbolic Smoke Ball. The organization put advertisements in different daily papers offering a prize of 100 pounds to any individual who utilized the smoke ball three times each day as coordinated and contracted flu, colds, or some other sickness. After seeing this, Carlill bought a ball and utilized it as coordinated. Carlill contracted flu and made a case for the prize. Carbolic Smoke Ball declined to pay and Carlill sued damages emerging from breach of agreement. Judgment for 100 pounds was entered for Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball appealed. It was held that there was a fully binding contract with Mrs Carlill. The judges justified the case with the following reasons, firstly the advertisement was not an offer to everyone but it is an offer specifically for those who followed the rules of the advertisement, secondly satisfying the conditions in the advertisement for using the smoke ball is regarded as acceptance to the offer and thirdly, purchasing or even utilizing the smoke ball constituted good consideration, because it was a clear detriment incurred at the responsibility of the company Furthermore, when more people purchase the smoke balls following the advertisement was a distinct benefit to Carbolic. Lastly, the company claimed that 1000 ponds was deposited at the Alliance Bank so it showed that the intentions of the company was to be legally