QUESTION 1
A contract has been defined as a promise between two or more two
parties and is executable by law. For a contract to be justifiable, it
requires the mutual concept of two or more people where one of
them makes an offer, and the other party accepts the offer that has
been made as it was ruled in the Balfour v Balfour (1919). The failure
by one of the parties to keep their part of the bargain attracts legal
action in restitution. Restitutions are often applied in any
contractual situation where one of the parties has reneged on their
part of the bargain. Besides, it is also applicable in situations where
one of the parties to a contract has conferred the benefit on the
other party but is not able to honor their part of the bargain because
the agreement is either defective or does not exist in the first place
as it was ruled in the case of Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and
Brother Ltd (1925).
As explained below, several contractual and restitutional issues
have been identified and raised in the case scenario in relation to
Brad, Chris, Fran, Sally, and Mike.
Brad is the seller of the cafe's fittings, and he had posted an
advertisement selling his cafe's equipment and stock. For a contract
to be declared as validly and legally formed, there must be an offer
offered by the offeror and accepted by the offeree.
Brad was not the offeror who offered the offeree; however, he was
only invited to treat for sale of those items as mentioned above. In
general, the court presumed that the advertisement is considered
as an invitation to treat, and the court ruled that an invitation to
treat is not an offer because it lacks the intention to create legal
intentions as it was decided in Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and
Brother Ltd (1925). Therefore, Brad is merely inviting others to make
him an offer, and Brad is the one accepting the offer. This indicates
that he sought a negotiation on forming the contract. Similarly, in
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist (1953), the
court held that displaying products on a shelf could not be declared
or regarded as an offer but rather an invitation to treat. On the basis
of an invitation, there is nothing for others to accept, which enables
other parties who want to create a legal relationship by making an
offer himself, and which Brad can choose to accept or reject the
offer on considering the price offered by them, if Brad chooses to
https://www.coursehero.com/file/133286191/law-of-obligationsediteddocx/
, accept it, then there will be a binding agreement reached
between them. In
This study source was downloaded by 100000856941565 from CourseHero.com on 11-18-2022 03:03:44 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/133286191/law-of-obligationsediteddocx/
A contract has been defined as a promise between two or more two
parties and is executable by law. For a contract to be justifiable, it
requires the mutual concept of two or more people where one of
them makes an offer, and the other party accepts the offer that has
been made as it was ruled in the Balfour v Balfour (1919). The failure
by one of the parties to keep their part of the bargain attracts legal
action in restitution. Restitutions are often applied in any
contractual situation where one of the parties has reneged on their
part of the bargain. Besides, it is also applicable in situations where
one of the parties to a contract has conferred the benefit on the
other party but is not able to honor their part of the bargain because
the agreement is either defective or does not exist in the first place
as it was ruled in the case of Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and
Brother Ltd (1925).
As explained below, several contractual and restitutional issues
have been identified and raised in the case scenario in relation to
Brad, Chris, Fran, Sally, and Mike.
Brad is the seller of the cafe's fittings, and he had posted an
advertisement selling his cafe's equipment and stock. For a contract
to be declared as validly and legally formed, there must be an offer
offered by the offeror and accepted by the offeree.
Brad was not the offeror who offered the offeree; however, he was
only invited to treat for sale of those items as mentioned above. In
general, the court presumed that the advertisement is considered
as an invitation to treat, and the court ruled that an invitation to
treat is not an offer because it lacks the intention to create legal
intentions as it was decided in Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and
Brother Ltd (1925). Therefore, Brad is merely inviting others to make
him an offer, and Brad is the one accepting the offer. This indicates
that he sought a negotiation on forming the contract. Similarly, in
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist (1953), the
court held that displaying products on a shelf could not be declared
or regarded as an offer but rather an invitation to treat. On the basis
of an invitation, there is nothing for others to accept, which enables
other parties who want to create a legal relationship by making an
offer himself, and which Brad can choose to accept or reject the
offer on considering the price offered by them, if Brad chooses to
https://www.coursehero.com/file/133286191/law-of-obligationsediteddocx/
, accept it, then there will be a binding agreement reached
between them. In
This study source was downloaded by 100000856941565 from CourseHero.com on 11-18-2022 03:03:44 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/133286191/law-of-obligationsediteddocx/
