Issue
The main issue in relation to the forwarded situation is whether a contract actually exists amidst Dee and Sangeet’s Car Sales Pty Ltd.
The case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20 is a pertinent case in this regard. In the case, it had been stated that a specific agreement shall come into existence when a clear and certain offer is made by a particular party and such clear offer is actually reciprocated by an unequivocal and a clear acceptance by another party. However, it should be noted that an offer is differentiated from an ‘invitation to offer’ or ‘invitation to treat’. In this regard, the case of Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6 is a relevant case. In the case, it was deliberated that an ‘invitation to treat’ can be considered to be a request that is made in respect of others asking them to forward offers in order to be involved in the negotiations with a specific contract in the mind. It was specified that items exhibited for sale as well as an advertisement are regarded as ‘invitations to treat’.
The element of intention is regarded compulsory for the existence of a contract. In this respect, the case of Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72 can be regarded as an important case. In the case, it had been held that in order for any contract to exist, it is essential that the involved parties possess the intent to be bound and obligated legally through the contract. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, it was said that even an advertisement shall be considered to be an offer if it is determined that the advertisement shows the intent of the party to be bound and obligated in a contract.
Another imperative element in relation to a binding contract is the element of consideration. In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria v Le [2007] HCA 52, it had been stated that any particular promise shall be possible to transform into a contract, only when the element of consideration is present.
In the given situation, Dee purchased a second-hand car from Sangeet’s Car Sales Pty Ltd (of which Sangeet is the owner).
In connection to the given scenario, the case of Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6 is an applicable case. Applying the case, it should be stated that Sangeet made an ‘invitation to treat’ requesting others to forward their offers in order to be involved in the negotiations with a specific contract in the mind. The advertisement was seen by Dee and she forwarded the offer to purchase the car, which Sangeet accepted. The case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20 is an applicable case in this regard. Applying the case, it should be stated that a specific agreement came into existence amidst Dee and Sangeet because a clear and certain offer was made by Dee and such clear offer was reciprocated by an unequivocal and a clear acceptance by Sangeet.
Rule
The case of Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72 can be regarded as an applicable case. Making application of the case, it must be stated that a contract exists amidst Dee and Sangeet because both of the involved parties possessed the intent to be bound and obligated legally through the contract. Making application of the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, it can be said that even an advertisement shall be considered to be an offer if it is determined that the advertisement shows the intent of the party to be bound and obligated in a contract. However, in this scenario, the advertisement was an invitation to treat to which Dee responded as the offeror.
Making application of the case of Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria v Le [2007] HCA 52, it must be stated that the particular promises by Dee as well as Sangeet shall give rise to a particular contract because the element of consideration is present in their case. Dee is willing to pay 9500 dollars for the car that he is going to receive from Sangeet.
Conclusion
In the conclusion, a contract actually exists amidst Dee and Sangeet’s Car Sales Pty Ltd.
The issue is what rights could be availed by Dee in accordance to the common law.
In relation to the provided situation, the case cited as Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 K.B. 805 can be considered to be a relevant case. In the Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co case, it had been mentioned that misrepresentation is an act of giving false and misleading information by a specific party (or else any agent of that specific party) in respect of the other party prior to when the contract has been made, which persuades such other party to establish the contract. It was specified that if any individual establishes a particular contract through dependance upon any kind of misrepresentation and then suffer any loss as a consequence, then, the aggrieved party shall be able to cancel the specific contract or else claim damages.
Another important case in relation to the given situation is the case cited as Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62. In the case, it had been stated that if any party gives false and misleading information to another involved party (prior to when the contract has been made), thereby inducing the other involved party to give effect to a particular contract, then, that particular party shall be considered to be liable if the aggrieved party suffers any loss as a consequence of such misrepresentation or misleading information, and then, the aggrieved party shall be able to cancel the specific contract or else claim damages.
Application
The case of Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 is another pertinent case in this regard. In this case, it had been specified that if any party passes on false and misleading information to another involved party (prior to when the contract has been made), and influences the other involved party to form a particular contract, then, that particular party shall be considered to be liable if the aggrieved party suffers any loss as a consequence of such misrepresentation or misleading information, and then, the aggrieved party shall be able to cancel the specific contract or else claim damages.
In the given scenario, Dee would never have established the contract with Sangeet, if she knew the truth.
Applying Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 K.B. 805, it should be mentioned that Sangeet caused misrepresentation when he gave false and misleading information regarding the second-hand car in respect of Dee prior to when the contract had been made, which persuaded Dee to establish the contract. It can be specified that Dee established the particular contract through dependance upon the misrepresentation by Sangeet and then suffered loss when the mechanisms of the car stopped working properly. Hence, Dee shall be able to cancel the specific contract and/or claim damages.
Applying Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62, it should be stated that Sangeet gave false and misleading information to Dee (prior to when the contract had been made), thereby inducing Dee to give effect to the particular contract, and hence, Sangeet shall be considered to be liable because Dee suffered the loss of non-functioning of the car as a consequence of such misrepresentation or misleading information by Sangeet. Therefore, Dee shall be able to cancel the specific contract and/or claim damages.
The case of Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 is another applicable case in this regard. Applying this case, it must be specified that Sangeet passed on false and misleading information to Dee (prior to when the contract had been made), and influenced Dee to form the particular contract, and hence, Sangeet shall be considered to be liable because Dee party suffered the loss of used and broken car as a consequence of the misrepresentation or misleading information by Sangeet. Hence, Dee shall be able to cancel the specific contract and/or claim damages.
Conclusion
In the conclusion, it must be stated that Dee shall be able to avail the right of cancelling the contract as well as the right of claiming damages in accordance to the common law.
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20.
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 K.B. 805.
Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria v Le [2007] HCA 52.
Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72.
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
