Discussion of Contract Formation
Whether there is an enforceable contract between Tim and Jen, or not?
A contract can be defined as an exchange of promise, for doing or not doing a specified thing, in exchange of a consideration. It can either be drawn verbally or in a written manner. In order to form a contract, it needs to have the requisite elements of the contract, which include offer and acceptance, a consideration, intent, capacity and clarity.
The beginning of a contract is from an offer being made. This has to be clearly differentiated from an invitation to treat, which highlights the readiness of the parties to negotiate upon the contractual terms. The offer on the other hand denotes the keenness of the parties to create lawful relations. The advertisements given in the newspaper, internet or magazines are not deemed as offer and instead, are considered as an invitation to treat, as was established in Partridge v Crittenden. In such situations, the advertising party is not obligated to go through with the sale.
The next element is that of acceptance. Upon an offer being made successfully, it has to be accepted by the party to which the offer was made. If any other party accepts such offer, it would not be deemed as acceptance. Also, the offer has to be accepted as it was made and any changes in the same would make it a counter offer, as was held in the matter of Hyde v Wrench.
Another element in contract relates to the contractual capacity of the parties. So, the parties have to have a legal age, of over 18 years and sound mind, to be contractual capable. However, there are situations where the minors are permitted to enter into the contracts, and these include the contract for supplying goods or services, which is suitable for the life of the minor.
There also has to be a clarity regarding the terms on which the contract is being drawn. Moreover, the parties need to have the intention of creating legal relationship, which would bind them lawfully. Consideration is another crucial element, which is described in the third part of this discussion.
In the given case study, Jen came across Tiny Tim over the internet, while looking for a professional DJ. This display of information about Tiny Tim over the internet would be deemed as an invitation to treat, where by the terms had to be discussed with Tiny Tim for the details regarding the contract. The communication is exchanged through email, where by the discussion is carried on regarding what Jen wants and what Tim can offer. The reply of Jen would be deemed as the offer in this case as this contains the terms upon which she is willing to form a contract. However, on this offer, instead of giving an acceptance, a counter offer was made by Tiny Tim. On this counter offer, an acceptance was never gained. Hence, due to absence of elements of contract, a contract was not formed.
Application of Contract Law in the Case of Jen and Tim
Conclusion
To conclude, an enforceable contract was not formed between Tim and Jen.
Whether there is a relevance of dispute of Jen with Simon, or not?
The principle of estoppels stops the people from relying upon the rights based on the facts, which are different from the earlier drawn facts. A defensive principle is equitable estoppel, which restricts the individuals from taking any kind of unfair advantage from the other individual, through a false language or conduct. This doctrine restricts the individuals from acting in a manner which would induce another person, in acting in a particular manner. In short, the individual is stopped from being in a position which would be different from the previous time, when such a different individual would injure the other party.
Promissory estoppel, under the contract law, prevents the parties from acting out in a manner, due to the promise of the first party of not to. There is also a need for reliance on the second party on the promise and the acting upon the same.
In the given case, the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable on the dispute of Jen with Simon. Simon waited on the signing of the order form by Jen, and as per the promise made to Jen he started making the Cuban Cake decorations. This decoration was a specification made by Jen, and as per the discussion, he kept his end of the bargain. Apart from the applicability of a verbal contract in this case, Jen would be estopped from denying the cake order to Simon due to the applicability of promissory estoppels. And in case, she does that, she would be liable for damages, which would be payable by her to Simon.
Conclusion
To conclude, Jen would be stopped due to the applicability of promissory estoppels due to the reliance of Simon on her promise.
Whether there is an enforceable contract between Jen and Adam, or not?
One of the essential elements of a contract is consideration. The amount of consideration is mutually decided upon by the parties; however, it is crucial that the same has an economic value. In the matter of Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, three wrappers were considered as sufficient and adequate consideration, as they had the required economic value. Moreover, the consideration has to be current or present, and it cannot be past. In short, the consideration has to be made when the task is being performed, and a consideration paid in the past is not valid. In the matter of Re McArdle, there was past consideration, due to which, it was held as invalid. The promise of making the payment, as per the Court of Appeals, has to be subsequent to the performance of consideration for the promise made.
In this case, the consideration of helping Adam in the past, in the college assignment would be deemed as past consideration. And as a result of this, the consideration would be held as invalid. Even though there was an offer, and an acceptance on the same, but due to the absence of valid consideration, a contract cannot be held to have been made between the two.
Conclusion
To conclude, an enforceable contract was not formed between Jen and Adam due to the lack of valid consideration.
Whether Bill is entitled to the consideration of $ 20, in case he helps Jen in setting up the party or not?
As has been highlighted through the rules, the offer can only be accepted by the party to which the same was made. In this case, the offer was made to the cousins of Jen and the same was sent on the phones of the cousins of Jen. The offer was never made to Bill, who is an uncle of Jen and so, he could not accept the offer. Even if he accepts the offer, the same would not be binding on Jen and she would not have to pay the consideration of $20 to Bill.
Conclusion
Bill is not entitled to the consideration of $ 20, even if he helps Jen in setting up the party, due to lack of an offer being made to him.
References
Abbott K, Pendlebury N and Wardman K, Business law (Thompson Learning, 8th ed, 2007)
Andrews N, Contract Law (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2015)
Blum BA, Contracts: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers Online, 4th ed, 2007)
Carter JW, Elisabeth Peden and Greg Tolhurst, Contract Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2007)
Elliott C and Quinn F, Contract Law (Pearson Education Limited, 9th ed, 2013)
Furmston M and Tolhurst GJ, Contract Formation: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010)
Latimer P, Australian Business Law 2012 (CCH Australia Limited, 31st ed, 2012)
Macdonald E, and Atkins R, Koffman & Macdonald’s Law of Contract (Oxford University Press, 8th ed, 2014)
Poole J, Casebook on Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 2016)
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1
Hyde v Wrench [1840] 49 ER 132
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
