The legal issue in the case of Colleen and Gabriel is whether an intention to be legally bound exists in the contract for the purchased machinery. Gabriel offered to sell colleen machinery that will be more efficient by 30 percent. The other issue is whether the consideration that is provided by Colleen is practical since the agreed contractual price was $350,000 but colleen intends to pay $320,000 after giving herself a discount.
The intention to be legally bound is dependent on the contracting parties intentions judged objectively. To determine the purpose of an agreement different presumptions of domestic and commercial contracts are employed.[1]
In commercial agreements, however, the intention to form legal relations among the contracting parties is present unless the parties express the absence of a promise or the intention to be bound by honour only[2]. Bowerman v ABTA [1966] CLC 451[3]: In this case, the plaintiff booked a holiday with the defendant’s tour operator. The operator becomes insolvent, and there was the question of whether the customers were entitled to reimbursement of the full holiday cost. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement since the intention of forming a legal relationship was present, and the defendant failed to fulfil their end of the bargain.
Consideration is an essential part of an agreement such that without it there is no contract. In this case, something must move from the promisor to the promisee and from the promisee to the promisor. One of the elements of consideration is that it need not be adequate but must be legally sufficient.[4] Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; 114 ER 330[5]: in this case, the deceased made a promise that his wife would retain resident of the house if she paid £1 per year in ground rent. It was found that the consideration was sufficient under the law. However, a partial payment of debt is not a proper consideration. The contract between Colleen and Gabriel is legally binding since there is something that is moving from both parties and the deal is a commercial one and not a domestic one. The fact that Colleen gives herself a discount does not preclude her from paying the full amount that was agreed upon in the contract. The $3500, 000 is a sufficient figure under the law, which requires full payment. Gabriel, therefore, can enforce the agreement. The remedies available are damages for the breach to compensate him for the remaining amount. Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488: [6] In this case, the consensus was that the law of contracts is meant to position the parties to the place they should have been had the contract been performed as it was initially agreed. Therefore, Gabriel is entitled to the full amount.
Question 2
The legal issue identified is whether the elements of an agreement to form a contract have been established and whether Unique Burgers is obliged to provide range rovers to Emily and Roger.
An offer is a communication indicating the terms on which the individuals who are making the offer are willing to get into an agreement and are prepared to be legally bound by it. An offer can also be addressed to the public.[7] Advertisements are invitations to treat and not offer because there is lack of specificity and definiteness of terms. They are intended to lead to the making of an offer.[8] Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294[9]: the plaintiff was interested in buying a house from the defendant and made an application, the council in their reply stated that it had prepared a home for him to be sold at £2,180. It was held that this amounted to an invitation to treat.
An advertisement can amount to a unilateral contract since the company offered to reward a person who would get the coupons with a range rover. One party has provided to do something, and it is upon the other to choose whether to act on it. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal:[10] in this case, it was held that the plaintiff could get the reward that had been offered by the defendants since the advert was a unilateral contract. Since the advertisement by Unique Burgers was unilateral offer was upon the interested parties decide whether to act on it. Withdrawal of an advert must be communicated in the same way the advertisement was made. When Unique Burgers discovered the printing error, they went to great lengths to inform the public of the withdrawal their publications. The fact that Rogers never actually heard of the revocation until he got to the company’s premises does not give him a right to claim the car. Emily too cannot claim the vehicle.
References
Elliott, Catherine, and Frances Quinn. Contract Law Seventh Edition. England: Pearson Education Limited, 2009.
Kuhnel-Fitchen, Kathrin, and Tracey Hough. Optimize Contract Law. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Poole, Jill. Casebook on Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
—. Textbook on Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Tepper, Pamela. The Law of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code. New York: Cengage Learning, 2014.
Case Laws
Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488 House of Lords
Bowerman v ABTA [1966] CLC 451
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; 114 ER 330
[1] Jill Poole. Casebook on Contract Law
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 179.
[2] Jill Poole. Textbook on Contract Law
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 164.
[3] Bowerman v ABTA [1966] CLC 451
[4] Kathrin Kuhnel-Fitchen and Tracey Hough. Optimize Contract Law
(New York: Routledge, 3 Feb 2014), 33.
[5] Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; 114 ER 330
[6] Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488 House of Lords
[7] Catherine Elliott & Frances Quinn. Contract Law Seventh Edition (England: Pearson Education Limited, 2009), 14.
[8] Pamela Tepper. The Law of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code (New York: Cengage Learning, 2014), 64.
[9] Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294
[10] Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal
