Part A
The primary issue of the problem is whether Ian can ask for any claim for breach of contract against Ben or not.
To determine the issue, it is required to come into a conclusion whether there is any contract made in between Ben and Ian or not. The principle of contract is based on the doctrine of offer and acceptance. A contract can be formed when an offer has been made by a party and the same has been accepted by the other. However, both the offer and acceptance have certain elements that established the legality of the terms. The essentials of offer has been prescribed in AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter, where the court has stated that the condition of the offer should be legal and there should a specific time for accepting the offer be mentioned.
However, the validity of the offer lapses in case of revocation or rejection. The rejection can either made expressly or impliedly. In Byrne v Van Tienhoven, it has been held that an offer comes to an end immediately if the person to whom offer has been made denied accepting it.
There are certain medium to accept an offer and postal rule is one of them. It has been stated in Adams v Lindsell that if a person accepts an offer through mail or by post, it can be regarded as valid acceptance. However, such acceptance should come into the notice of the other person.
In this case, Ben has made an offer to Ian to deliver lecture on Astronomy with certain specific time period. Ian came to know about the offer on the next day and rejected the offer as he was not available on that day. Ben found the rejection and contracted with another professor. This leads to the termination of offer and the operation of it has been ceased. However, Ian became free on the next day and sent a mail to Ben regarding his acceptance. Ben was unaware of the fact. Ian stated that he had made a statement in his previous rejection that he may let know Ben about any changes. However, in such case, new offer should have to be made by Ben as the previous contract was rejected and ceased to be existed. Therefore, no contract has been made in between them on the basis of previous offer.
Conclusion:
On the context of above mentioned rules, it can be stated that Ian cannot bring an action against Ben for breach of contract.
Issue 1: Ian and Ben’s Contract
The main issue is whether Sharon can sue Ben for breach of contract or not.
As per the law, a contract can be bind upon the parties if both the parties are giving consent over the issue. In the legal language, the consent can be termed as meeting of mind. This concept is based on the legal maxim of consensus ad idem. It is a basic principle of contract law. However, it can be seen that misunderstanding takes place in certain circumstances by the parties. The misunderstanding or mistake can be of three types such as common mistake, unilateral mistake and mutual mistake. It has been established in Raffles v Wichelhaus that in case of any common or reciprocal mistake, binding nature of the contract will not be established and validity of the contract will be terminated. On the other hand, in King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd, the court was rightly observed that the contract made by mistake can be voidable in nature depended on the parties. However, aggrieved party may get certain compensation for any loss incurred by the other party on the basis of Webster v Cecil. It has been held in Wood v Scarth, a contract can be valid if both the parties have accepted the same terms and condition. If a party has done something by mistake, the other party will be held liable for such loss.
Another principle based on the same thing is Non est factum. It applies in such case where a contract has been made in between the parties on the basis of mistaken facts. Certain conditions have been made under this rule:
- The claiming party should have certain physical disabilities and due to this, he has failed to go through the conditions written in the contract;
- There should be certain mistakes occurred at the time of making the contract;
- The intention of the parties should base on mistakes.
In the present case, it has been observed that Ben had made an offer to Sharon believing Sharon is expertise in Astronomy. Sharon had accepted the offer believing that Ben made the approach to her as he needs an expert on Astrology. Therefore, mistakes had been occurred by both of them and when Sharon accepted the offer, contract has been made in between the duo. It can easily be stated that no meeting of minds has been taken place and as per the rules of consensus ad idem, it can be stated that the terms of the contract could not bind the parties to the contract.
It has also been observed in this case that at the time of delivering the lecture, Ben came to know that Sharon is not a professor on Astronomy but Astrology and refused to pay a single penny to her. Though mistake has been made by both the parties, still Sharon cannot take the plea of Non est factum as she has no physical disability and she can verify the conditions of the contract as well as the intention of Ben.
Issue 2: Sharon and Ben’s Contract
Conclusion:
Ben can defend himself on the basis of Non est factum and Sharon could not succeed in her claim as she has enough opportunities to verify the objective of the contract.
The major issue in this case is to determine the strength of claim made by Cheng and Gordon and to decide who has a better claim for the car.
The present case is based on fraudulent misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a part of the contract law and damage can be claimed by the affected party depending on the velocity of the situation and depth of the damage. A case can be termed as fraudulent misrepresentation is the following facts have been met:
- There must be a representation;
- The base of the representation should be false;
- The representation need to be made recklessly;
- The representation should be made to defraud others;
- The other party should have to rely on the represented facts;
- The other party has to suffer damage due to such misrepresentation.
There is another misrepresentation called negligent misrepresentation and it will also be imposed on this case. According to this principle, one party is required to be failed to ensure the accuracy of the representation. However, the general rule is that the contract is not materially affected by such misrepresentation and therefore, the question of legal action does not in general be cropped up.
Except this, the rule of Nemo dat quod non habet is applicable in this case and according to this rule, the bonafide purchaser can retain his goods legally. In Henderson & Co vs WIlliams, it has been held that property could not be recovered from a bonafide purchaser.
According to section 27 of the Victoria Goods Act 1958, a person who is not a owner of a product and sold the product to other, the buyer will not get any extra title over the goods or product compare to that of seller. However, it has been observed under section 29 of the said Act that if the seller of such goods has voidable interest, then buyer will acquire a good title over the goods.
In case of Cundy v Lindsay, it has been held that a contract will automatically be terminated if the same is based on mistaken identity. In Phillips v Brooks Ltd., it has been observed that a person had falsely represented him and bought jewels from the shop by giving bounced cheque. The contract between the two becomes voidable in nature. Later he sold the ornaments to another party and the jewel shop authority had sued the third party to whom the ornaments were sold. It has been held by the court that the jewel shop could not claim the ornaments from the third party as contract was made in between the shop and the misrepresented person. No contract was made in between the shop and the third party and therefore, the shop authority could not claim any damage from him.
In this case, it has been observed that a contract had been made in between Gordon and a woman who had misrepresented her identity by introducing her as the newly elected Mayor. Based on the identity, Gordon sold a car to her without taking the whole amount. Gordon came to know later that the woman was not the actual Mayor and the contract made in between Gordon and the woman become voidable.
Later, Gordon had noticed an advertisement of the same car and claimed the car from the third party. Cheng (third party) told that he had purchased the car by paying proper cash and further, no contract was made in between Gordon and Cheng. Therefore, the title of the car is bestowed on Cheng as right of Gordon on the car was withheld after making the contract with the woman.
Conclusion:
The claim of Cheng is much stronger than the claim of Gordon.
References:
AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454
Bayern, S. (2016). Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law. California Law Review, 103.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
Goldberg, V. P. (2016). From British Westinghouse to the New Flamenco: Misunderstanding Mitigation. Browser Download This Paper.
King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd (1897) TLR 98
Layman, M. (2016). MISTAKE, FRAUD, AND WASTE: MASS INEFFICIENCIES IN SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW SELF-CERTIFICATION. Public Contract Law Journal, 46(1), 167.
Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243
Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62
Wood v Scarth (1858) 1 F&F 293
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
