Q 1 - An offer exits whenever the objective inference from the offeror’s words or conduct is that she intends to commit herself legally to the terms she proposes. The advertisement specified that the promisee should use the smoke ball 3 times a day for 2 weeks. Mrs. C used the smoke ball and caught Influenza‚ then claimed the $100 from the company. a- How were the facts of Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball different from the usual situation involving an advertisement? ( relate it to the elements of
Premium Contract
1. What are the principles under the doctrine of binding precedent? When it comes to deciding on case‚ judges do not decide solely on their own. They are bound to follow certain accepted principles which are commonly known as “the doctrine of binding precedent”. The doctrine of binding precedent required that “like cases decided alike”. If a case now before the court has facts and raises issues similar to those of a previously decided case‚ then the present case will be decided in the same way
Premium Contract
determine if an offer exists‚ an offer will be differentiated from an invitation to treat. Secondly‚ the offer and acceptance of the last offer will be identified. Thirdly‚ Fitness for purpose (SOGA) will be explained. With regard to Peter v Manufacturer‚ the “Guarantee” of consumer goods (UCTA) will be explained. Lastly‚ Peter will be advised regarding this issue. 2. Peter v Salesperson Applicable Law 1: Issue This issue is whether the advertisement brochure is an invitation to treat. It is
Premium Contract
contract law agreement: objective test of intention to agree offer must be matched by other’s acceptance requirement of certainty of agreement parties have intention to create legal relations enforce promise: consideration promise is contained in a deed promissory estoppel (claimant has relied on defendant’s promise) reliance theory: consistent with the harm principle (prevent harm on others) restitution interest
Premium Contract
four elements‚ that being offer‚ acceptance‚ intention and consideration. (Sweeney & O’Reilly 2007 pg 160). A contract only exists when an offer has been accepted‚ an offer has the intention to be legally binding and the willingness to contract on certain conditions (Butt 2004 pg306). Accepting an offer means agreeing to the contract and in essences agreeing to the terms of that contract‚ an offer can’t be withdrawn or rejected and only the offeree is able to accept the offer‚ this acceptance must be
Premium Contract
high degree of freedom of choice; but‚ in the modern era with increasing use of statute to regulate behaviour that may mislead‚ exclude liability or be oppressive. 1.3 Essentials of a modern contract * Intention to create legal relations * Offer * Acceptance * Written formalities in exceptional cases * Consideration except for contracts under deed * Clear terms * Parties must have capacity to contract * The contract must not be ‘illegal’ or contrary to public policy
Premium Contract
I will discuss mainly two things; formation of a contract between two parties‚ the offer and the acceptance. I will report on their relevance for each of the 3 parties involved‚ finally I will give legal advice to Chuck (offeror)‚ Arnold and Sylvester (offerees). First we must distinguish whether Chuck’s advert was an invitation to treat or an offer. An example of a case involving an advertisement as an offer was Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co. [1] This case involved an advert where Miss
Premium Offer and acceptance Invitation to treat Contract
.................................4 The decision..................................................................3 Analytical Discussion of the implications for the principles of law regarding offer and acceptance............................................6 Current law in Australia regarding offer and acceptance..............10 Theoretical perspective.....................................................12 Conclusion...................................................................14 Bibliography
Premium Contract
items from the shelves. In order to identify the existence of the contract‚ it is important to examine the rule of an invitation to treat and an offer. It is important to understand the difference between these two because the legal consequences will be different. Invitation to treat (ITT) is not an offer. It is made when one party invites the other party to make an offer. The term ‘offer’ is defined in s. 2 (a) of the Contracts Act 1950 as when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or
Premium Contract
of the parties: section 5(2)‚ SOGA 1957. An invitation to treat is an action inviting other parties to make an offer to form a contract. These actions may sometimes appear to be offers them‚ and the difference can sometimes be difficult to determine. The distinction is important because accepting an offer creates a binding contract while "accepting" an invitation to treat is actually making an offer. Advertisements are usually invitations to treat‚ which allows sellers to refuse to sell products
Premium Contract Sales Auction