Q 1 This scenario is related to offer and acceptance. The question pertains issue regarding offer/ Invitation to treat, counter offer, acceptance of an offer and revocation of an offer.

The first issue in this preposition is to determine whether there is an offer or an Invitation to treat (ITT) when Dick (D) tells Miny (M) that he can build a conservatory at the back of her house for 10000 is an offer or an ITT.

To make a contract binding, one party must make an offer and the other party must accept that offer.

Offer is a statement made by one party to show willingness to enter into a contract on terms that stated.

Offer can be made orally, by conduct or in writing.

As per the case of Storer v Manchester City Council 1974, a contract was formed when Mr. Storer signed the Sale agreement.

All essential terms were present and the wording was clear and unequivocal to make an offer.

Lord Denning held that you look at what a person did and say.

On the contrary, ITT is an expression of willingness to enter into the negotiations only.

As per the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council 1979 where the house of lords held that there was no contract as the council’s words may be prepared to sell specify an expression of willingness of enter into negotiations only.

Apply to the facts, it will be considered that D made an offer and not an ITT as the term is clear.

The second issue in this preposition is regarding Amani (A) who visits M’s house and tells that he will charge 8000 to build the conservatory, whether it amounts to an offer or an ITT.

From the rules mentioned above, it will be considered that A made an offer (Storer v Manchester City Council 1974 as mentioned above) and not an ITT as the terms are clear and not wage.

Further on, when A send a message to M stating that she will accept the offer if A reduce the offer to 7500, will amount to a counter offer.

Moreover, when it was refused by A, M again texted A that she accept the original offer of 8000 which M did not reply.

The general rule is that counter offer kills the original offer.

The case on point is Hyde v Wrench where the Defendant offered to sell the house for 1000 and plaintiff ordered 950 which defendant refused and plaintiff accepted offer of 1000 which was held that the offer of 950 killed the original offer and could not be accepted.

Moreover, in Butler Machine tool v Ex Cell 1979 and Transformers and Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd 2015 the last shot win the battle and other offers that were made before the last offer were killed.

Apply to the facts, the first offer given by M will be considered as counter offer that kills the original offer of 8000, which was later again killed when A refused it and M again make a new offer of 8000 which killed his previous offer of 7500. Thus, valid offer was of 8000 that M made.

The other issue here is whether there will be a valid contract between M and A, when M accepts the offer of 8000 and A is unaware of it as his mobile is stolen.

The general rule is that of an offer is that that an offer to be effective must be communicated, there can be no acceptance without the knowledge of the offer as per case of Arcadis Consulting Ltd v AMEC 2018.

There must be meeting of minds as per case of Rust v Abbey Life insurance.

According to Gibbon v Proctor 1891 an offer can be accepted even if the offeree is unaware of it.

However, in persuasive case of R v Clarke it was made clear that offer cannot be accepted without the offeror knowledge. Applying to the facts, relying on R v Clarke M cannot make A liable as A was not aware of the offer given by M.

The fourth issue in this proposition is regarding D who said to M that he have withdrawn his offer as he cannot do the work for 10,000 anymore. The general rule of revocation is that an offer can be withdrawn anytime until acceptance (Payne v Cave 1789). Further on, in another case of Byrne v Ban Tien Hoven 1880 the court held that for effective withdrawal of offer it must be communicated to the offeree and must be by method which original offer was made (Shuey v US) or equally effective method.

Lastly, in the case of Dickinson v Dodds where one has said that offer is open for six weeks and the offeror revoke that offer after three weeks. The Court held that it will be a valid revocation. Therefore, applying it to the facts, relying on the case of Dickinson v Dodds D can validly revoke the offer. Thus, the offer revoked by D will be a valid revocation even if he said offer is open by 5 April.

Q2 (Q6) Essay on Promissory Estoppel

In contract law consideration Promissory Estoppel (PE) is a main element which is used in the cases where there is absence of consideration, thus then the principle of estoppel is applied. There are many types of PE but there main principle is used when there is issue regarding reliance. For instance, PE by the representation will give the effect to prevent or to stop any party who refuse to the fact of the repr es entation they made as per the case of Jordan v Money 1854. Moreover, a proprietary estoppel affect the party to prevent when one refuse that they had acquired the other part’s rights in land as per the case of Crabb v Arun District Council 1976.

Estoppel as an equitable remedy which is defined in the case of Maclaine v Gatty …where A by his words or conduct justified B in believing that a certain state of facts exist and B has acted upon such belief to his prejudice. A is not permitted to affirm against B that a different state of facts existed at the same time... Moreover, the Privy Council in the case of Ajayi v RT Briscoe Ltd 1964 said that the promisor will not be able to reinforce a legal right when the promisor would not be able to enforce the legal right. By doing this the promisor right was extended but if it is not possible for the promise to get their original position the promisor will also not be able to enforce the legal right. There will be no certainty or the guarantee which each of the party provide’s in consideration for the act of other party.

To use the PE where the promise has rescinded the test provided in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947

Firstly, parties must have an already existing legal relationship. (combe v Combe 1951)

Secondly, the parties reliance on the promise that has been made.

Thirdly, PE will be use as a defence which further means PE can be use as shield and not a sword.

Fourthly, it is not good for a promisee that a promisor moves back to the promise. (Brikom Investments v Carr 1979 and D and C Builders v Rees 1966).

Fifthly, PE does not extinguish the rights.

Thus, to conclude the doctrine of PE is a representative of law of contract and can be used as a defence. In case of D and C Builders v Rees 1966 as mentioned above, it is one of the case used for justice that recognise the importance for all of the parties that they can rely on doctrine of PE while entering in a business. There is a protection which is offered by the PE and that ensures each party’s considerations, or the promises they made and are respected and legally binding, which can be deemed as unfair when parties in the contract are allowed to escape the liability. There will be no certainty or the guarantee which each of the party provide’s in consideration for the act of other party.

The major case on PE is Hughes v Metropolitan Railways where the court concluded that it was compulsory for company in equity to be ejected from the land. Moreover, this case was further highlighted in the case of Central London property Trust Ltd v High trees House Ltd where it was concluded that the parties enter in an agreement which was supposed to be create legal relations between the parties. The promise b

Q3 (Q2) W V R Bro 1991

In the following case the Court of Appeal gave their decision. In this case the defendants (D) were the Roffey Bros who were the contractors who entered into the contract to refurbish a block of flats. They subcontracted the work to a carpenter (Claimant) William (W). When the claimant was not able to complete his work then the defendants offered him to pay an extra 10,300 to finish it on time. W carries the work unless again the payments were not given. The D then claim that the agreement for additional payment was not enforceable as W does not provide any consideration which was rejected by the court of appeal and held that W has provided consideration. The Court of appeal said that the D had received the practical benefit to complete work on time. They did not receive any benefit in law. W was only agreed to do which was binding on it. The D relied on Stilk v Myrick court concluded that performance for the existing duty did not constituted good consideration. The Court of Appeal held that the D had received the practical benefit to complete work on time. They did not receive any benefit in law. W was only agreed to do which was binding on it. The D relied on Stilk v Myrick court concluded that performance for the existing duty did not constitute good consideration. The Court of Appeal held that Gildwell LJ has set out proposition for which W stands as authority and said a promise to make more payment to complete the task on time was binding when the promisor had obtained any practical benefit and promise was not obtained by fraud. Thus, the D also gained a practical benefit by avoiding such penalty clause. The rule was later affirmed in the case of WRN Ltd v Ayris 2008.

In Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd 2013 it was ruled that English law had abolished the principle that an existing contractual duty for a promise does not amount to good consideration. But following W V R Bros two main problems arises, firstly that what is the practical benefit obtained by the D? Secondly, how the conclusion can be reconciled with the case of Stilk v Myrick?

The court relied on many factors to identify the practical benefit obtained in the W v R bros case. Firstly, that the C continued the work without breaching his contract. The d suffer the expense while they hire other people to complete the work. Thirdly, they avoid the penalty clause as they get delayed while completing the work. W v R bros gave us a pragmatic decision that give effect to the situation reality.

The decision of the court of Appeal is facing criticism, firstly on the ground that they did not identify the practical benefit that was obtained and secondly, they failed to place proof to hold that contracting party do what they contracted for. For the theory of duress and fraud, the two cases W v R Bros and case of Stilk where the consideration was available but contract was set aside because of the main reason duress.

Q4 (Q8) Condition, warranty and term.

A term may be held to be a condition in any of the three ways mentioned below. Firstly, by statutory/ judicial/parties classification. A simple contractual term is a term which form a contract. Each of the term is transfer in obligation of a contract, when one breach the term then one will be guilty for breach.

Not every term is stated expressly even some terms are peripheral to the contract objectives.

A term may be classified as condition by statue and courts. There are two ways to determine whether a term is condition or not. Firstly, where the party perform the term and goes in depth of the contract, then parties have the intention that there term be treated as a condition, and if other party breaches that term one can get damages (Couchman v Hill 1947). Secondly, court sees the binding authority that [unreadable]

term mentioned in the contract as per case of (Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth 1987).

Moreover, it is necessary for the courts to see that parties themselves intended to use word condition in sense.

As per case of Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool sales Ltd 1974.

A condition of the contract is a major requirement which both of the parties must comply with.

Conditions in contract can be expressed or implied conditions.

The express condition is which been explicitly stated in a contract.

On the other hand, implied condition is not explicitly stated but the law assumed that conditions exist in the contract.

A condition precedent gives us that contract may not be binding unless any specific event occurs as per the case of Pym v Camphell 1856.

Moreover, a promissory condition is a contract term where one party promises to do something particular but if one fail to do so then it will considered as a breach of contract.

A third classification in law is intermediate or the innominate term as lord Diplock in Hongkong v Kawasaki Ltd 1962 define the innominate term.

An innominate term does not give rise to right to terminate the contract performance and can be distinguished from the warranty where the innocent party will not get the remedy in the damages.

Carter 2012 provides some conditions that courts relied firstly any detriment that is caused or can be caused by the breach of the contract. Secondly, any dely caused or can be caused by the breach or thirdly the value of any performance that is received by the party.

A term is innominate until the contray is made clear as per case of Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA 1981.