Contract Law Text - Cases - and Services

Question: Discuss about the Contract Law for Text, Cases, and Services. Answer: Introduction: An acceptance has to be completely in accordance to the terms made by the offer. If an acceptance contains additions terms it is not regarded as acceptance at all and instead is considered as a counter offer (McKendrick, 2014). The concept was initially brought up in the case of Hyde v Wrench [1840] where the court differentiated between an acceptance and a counter offer. The concept was used in Australia in the landmark case of Bressan v Squires [1974] 2 NSWLR 460 where the court held that acceptance has to be absolute. An offer is terminated as soon as it has been rejected and a counter offer accounts to a rejection of the offer. The concept was also provided by the case of Hyde v Wrench [1840]. According to the postal rule of acceptance an offer is accepted as soon as the letter of acceptance is posted by the offeree and not when the letter reaches the offeror (Hunter, 2015). The postal rule was provided by the landmark case of Adams v Lindsell(1818) 1 B Ald 681. The court in this case ruled that according to the general rule of acceptance it has to be brought to the offerers knowledge but in case the acceptance is made by post the offer is said to be accepted as soon as the letter is posted. It was provided in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 and the case of Dickinson v Dodds(1876) 2 Ch D 46 that an offer can only be revoked before the acceptance has been made. In case the offer has been accepted it cannot be revoked by the offeror. A consideration does not have to be fair in order to constitute a contract but it must be adequate in relation to contract formation. A past consideration is not regarded as a valid consideration. A past consideration can only be regarded as a valid consideration if the promisor himself promised to pay the promisee in relation to the contract as provided in the case of Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 WLR 435. In order to form a contract the is must be proved that the parties to the contact had the intention of legally binding each other to the terms of the contract (Poole, 2016). however if a party has signed the contract without reading its terms and there have been no misrepresentation by the other party to the contract than the contract is legally binding on the party as provided in the case of LEstrange V Graucob 1934. In the first case the offer made by Mike in relation to the purchase of laptop was $300 including GST. However Bob did not accept the offer made by Mike as the price he demanded by him was $300 excluding GST which was not equal to that of the offer. The statement made by Bob accounted to a counter offer and the original offer was rejected as soon as the counter offer was made. Thus as the original offer made by Mike did not further exist Bob cannot accept it and therefore there is no contract between them as provided in the case of Hyde v Wrench. In the second case the Bob had offered to purchase 200 Pentium 5 hard drives from Tom at a price of $50 each. Tom had sent his acceptance through post that he will comply by the offer made by Bob. As discussed above in the case off Adam v Lindsell an acceptance is said to be made as soon as the letter of acceptance is posted by the offeree. Thus in this case the acceptance was made by tom as soon as he posted the letter. An offer can only be revoked before it is accepted as provided in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven. Thus Bob is in a contractual relationship with tom and is liable to pay Tom for the hard drives. In the third case Steve has done favors for Bob in the past and in return demands a computer. Bob promises to give Steve the laptop but latter steps back on his promise. As a past consideration is not lawful Bob is not entitled to give Steve the computer. In the final case as Bob has signed the contract and Mary has already performed the part of the consideration Bob is liable to continue with the contract even if he had no intention to do so according to the principles provided in case of LEstrange V Graucob. Thus Bob has contractual relation with Mike, Tom and Mary and no contact with Steve. References Hunter, H. (2015). Modern Law of Contracts. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Poole, J. (2016).Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press. Adams v Lindsell(1818) 1 B Ald 681 Bressan v Squires [1974] 2 NSWLR 460 Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 Dickinson v Dodds(1876) 2 Ch D 46 LEstrange V Graucob 1934 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 WLR 435.