A legally binding agreement between two people is referred to as a contract. However, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a purpose on the part of both parties for there to be a legally binding contract. (The Open University, 2017:pg13). When making any decision regarding a legal action, it is essential to comprehend the four components of a contract. The parties engaged must also engage in a lawful business in addition to the other four requirements. Mary is not making a purchase offer to a buyer when she places the collectible vinyl records in the window; rather, she is extending a request to treat. In the Invitation to Treat, the seller accords herself an opportunity to negotiate
unlike in an Offer which is specific and complete and can warrant a Legal action if broken. When Mary realises the price is lower than she had intended she refuses to sell to Hassan. Mary understands that by displaying the vinyl, she is making an invitation to treat which she can renegotiate. It is the buyer Hassan who should make an offer to the seller, and if they refuse to sell, they are not under legal obligation to do so.
In the case of Fisher vs bell in the year 1961, the shopkeeper had displayed a flick knife labelled ejector knife, although it was prohibited to offer it for sale. Upon seeing it, a police officer took it, and after examination, they realised it was a flick knife. They charged the shopkeeper for committing a criminal offence as stipulated by the law. However, in his ruling, Lord Parker ruled that there was no crime on the part of the shopkeeper because displaying the knife was an invitation to treat and not an offer. Therefore, the same rule would apply in the case of Hassan vs Mary. When the seller displays the item, it is the purchaser who must make an offer (The Open University, 2017:pg21). In this case, the seller may decide to refuse the offer or accept it and is not legally obligated to sell it.
In the case of Mary and Paul, Paul makes a lower offer than what the seller intends to accept. Mary can decide to negotiate with Paul or reject the offer. In this occasion, there is one element of a contract which is not legally binding on its own; any valid contract requires acceptance (The Open University, 2017:pg22). However, in the case of Mary vs Paul, there is no agreement since Mary is yet to accept the offer. She failed to respond to the email that would have led to the acceptance of the Offer.
In the case of Felthouse vs Bindley 1862, an uncle made an offer to buy a horse from the nephew for a certain amount of money. The uncle indicated in the letter that if the nephew did not respond within a specified time, the horse would become his. When the nephew gives the horse to the auctioneers and instructs them not to sell it because he has already sold it to another person, they fail to honour the deal. The court, however, ruled that the nephew had not sold the horse to the uncle since he had not responded to the letter and accepted the offer.
When a buyer puts a clause about purchasing a good at a certain amount and fails to respond, he wants to assume possession through undesirable methods. Silence does not amount to acceptance of the offer (The Open University, 2017:pg25). Thus, in the case of Mary and Paul, there was no acceptance of the Offer, and consequently, she is under no legal obligation to give it to Paul. The buyer in this case as stipulated in the tort of conversation cannot take the vinyl unless the seller agrees to give it to him. Silence did not translate to acceptance of the offer; Mary can decide to sell the Vinyl to another buyer if she wishes.
When Sally shows the intention of buying the vinyl, they negotiate with the seller who agrees to sell it at the new price. The buyer makes an offer which the seller accepts and therefore the past consideration will not hold but the new one will (The Open University, 2017:pg27). Upon making another offer rather than the initial one on display, they form a counter offer which is still legally binding since there is acceptance from both parties. However, this Offer becomes null and void when sally fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the new proposal she had agreed to honour. Mary is therefore under no legal obligation to give the product to sally when she pays less than the agreed amount. In the Pennell’s case 1602, the court ruled that payment of a lesser amount than the agreed one in the contract does not amount to the fulfilment of the entire agreement. Since the money offered to Mary did not satisfy her, she was under no legal obligation to sell and therefore refunding sally was a great idea.
Garfunkel assumes possession upon entering into an agreement with Mary and receiving the property. However, when Garfunkel offers to give Mary additional cash for the already acquired property, he is under no legal obligation to do so. The law stipulates that if one party has already done something for the other, a subsequent promise cannot result in revocation of the earlier agreement (The Open University, 2017:pg27). If Garfunkel refuses to give the amount he promised earlier, Mary cannot sue him for failure to honour the promise.
Concerning the case of Eastwood vs Kenyon, Kenyon had promised to pay a debt for Eastwood after his wedding with Sarah but later refused. The court ruled in favour of Kenyon. The fact that Kenyon had not considered the factors that had led to the debts that Eastwood had when making the promise was enough for the court to rule in favour of the defendant. Garfunkel considers giving Mary the extra money after enjoying the benefits of the vinyl. However, this was not in the initial agreement or consideration.
The law of tort gives guidelines on what action to take when the actions of one party affect the rights of the other one. When the actions of one individual deprive the other of their rights, they can seek legal justice under the law of tort (The Open University, 2017:pg57). According to Cooke, the Law of tort stipulates proof of action or an omission that results in damage on the part of the claimant (The Open University, 2017:pg59).The harm caused by the defendant causes loss thereby attracting a legal liability. The case of Mary vs. Peter is a demonstration of the tort of negligence. Peter owed Mary a duty of care and his negligence results in legal liability.
In the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson where a staff served him a beer that had a snail, there was a need to understand whether there was negligence that caused damage to their client, Donoghue. The bottle that had the beer was opaque with a metal seal, and therefore, there was no way the staff or Donoghue could know that it contained a snail. Donoghue in his lawsuit claims to suffer from gastroenteritis after taking the beer and shock upon realisation of what he had consumed. Majority of the judges in the house ruled that Stevenson was liable under the tort of negligence. Additionally, the neighbour principle holds that a contractor or company owes the duty of care to a neighbour. It was necessary to establish whether Stevenson had breached the duty of care to Donoghue in the court’s ruling.
In the case of Mary vs Peter, Peter owed her a duty of care. Additionally, failure to connect the valve properly is an act of negligence that results in damage to Mary’s property. The case meets all the requirements for the tort of negligence, and therefore Peter is liable. He owed a duty of care to Mary, and his failure resulted in the breach of that duty of care that led to damage to her records. Mary is therefore justified to seek a legal action against Peter and claim for compensation for the loss incurred.
(Question 2)
A good law student understands the need for comprehensive note-taking when reading any legal document or case scenario. In answering the above questions, I used the note-taking skills to paraphrase and make crucial references to solving the case scenarios. While reading and taking the notes, it is possible to complete the given work successfully. Additionally, when note-taking the reader can understand the organisation of a particular literature, learn the way the author approaches the various questions and answers them, and also understand the reason for going into the content details. For example, I deduced the information about the elements of a contract from the book and used it to analyse and offer advice on the case scenarios. Additionally, it was easy to deduce from the past court cases and apply them in solving similar cases. For example, using the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson to advise Mary concerning her case against Peter. Good Note-taking skills are, therefore, an essential requirement for a law student.
References
The Open University (2017). An introduction to civil obligation. 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
