Law on Offer and Acceptance-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.whether there is an agreement based on offer and acceptance. 2.what is required, if anything, to show intention to create legal relations? Answers: Issue: Considering the case study, it can be stated that the legal issue present in the case is whether the agreement made between Simon and his father is based on the general principle of offer and acceptance or not. Rules: In case of any contract, the nature of the agreement should be legal and the terms and conditions of the contract should follow the legal principles (O'Sullivan, Hilliard, 2016). This is the general principle of law. There are two parties conduct the agreement; the first party makes an offer to the other party and the other party needs to accept the offer after considering the facts and terms of the offer. When the offer is accepted, it becomes contract. One of the leading cases on offer and acceptance is Carlill v Carlill Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 where it has been decided by the court that in case of unilateral contract, it is not mandatory to accept an offer. On the other hand, it has been held in Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 that if the parties have no intention to create legal relationship, there shall be no contract taken place between them. However, in case of any domestic contract made between two members of the same family, intention to create legal relation is mandato ry and a mere promise could not lead towards a contractual relationship (Spitko, 2016). In the words of Treitel, offer expresses the willingness of a party to make a contract on certain conditions with another person and the terms of the contract will be binding on both the parties if the other person accepts the contractual terms. Offer can be made in various forms such as by verbal submission or by different medium like letter, newspaper, advertisement and email. In Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, learned court has held that the intensity of legal relation does not depend only on the subjective intentions of the parties, but on the reasonable grounds of such intentions too (Fried, 2015). The principle of acceptance is based on the meeting of the mind theory. However, in Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 1037, it has been observed that the acceptance must be communicated. However, an exception to this rule has been observed in the case of Carlill v Carlill Smoke Ball Co. Application: It has been learnt from the present case that Simons father has offered him to pay a sum of $200 on the conditions that Simon has to mow the front and back yards of their property. It has also been learnt that Simon has started to mow the property which resembles his acceptance of the offer. Therefore, it can be stated that both the parties wanted to create legal relationship with each other and contract has been formed in between them. The nature of the contract is unilateral where an offer can be accepted by way of performance. Conclusion: It can therefore be advised to Simon that an agreement is existed in between Simon and his father on the basis of offer and acceptance. 2.Issue: The main issue regarding the second part of the case study is that whether the parties have any intention to create legal relationship or not. Rules: It is a general principle of Law on Contract that the parties should have an intention to create legal relationship with each other. A mere promise could not be held enough to make a legal relationship with each other. It was held in Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 that there was no intention of both the spouses to create legal relationship and the payment that fixed by the husband was an outcome of mere promise (Ibrahim, Ghadas, Musa, 2015). According to Duke LJ, no agreement for separation has been made in between the parties and the nature of the agreement is based on mutual promise. Therefore, no contract has been made between them and neither party are bound by the conditions of the promise. In Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4, it has been observed by the court that unless there is any clear intention made in between the parties, the nature of the agreement could not be binding upon the parties (Burrows, 2015). Another important case on domestic contract is Merritt v Merr itt [1970] EWCA Civ 6. The case has given concentration over the legal relationship between the parties (Oniyinde, 2017). It has been held that this case is quite different from the Balfour v Balfour. In this case, it has been observed the husband had given a written chit to his wife that if she pays off the mortgage money for the house, he will transfer the house to her. However, after completing the mortgage money, the husband refused to transfer the house. The Court had found the merit of the case in favour of the wife by stating that husband wanted to create legal relations with his wife by transferring the house in her name. The nature of the contract is called unilateral when there is no need to accept the offer expressly and acceptance can be made by mere performance of the proposed offer. Carlill Smoke Balls case is regarded as one of the most prominent case on unilateral contract. Application: In the present case, it has been observed that Simons father approached him to pay a sum of $200 in the form of allowance when Simon was in need of money and put a condition that Simon is required to mow the front and backyard of his ancestral property. Simon had accepted the offer and started to work on it. It is a general principle of law that an offer cannot be revoked once it has been accepted. Further, according to German juristFriedrich Carl von Savigny, legal intention is closely relate to the will theory (Fried, 2015). It is quite clear from the case study that both the parties have a clear will to make a contract over the topic. Therefore, contract has been made in between them as per the judgment made in Merritts case. Conclusion: The parties had an intention to create legal relation. References: Burrows, A. (Ed.). (2015).Principles of the English Law of Obligations. Oxford University Press, USA. Fried, C. (2015).Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Fried, C. (2015).Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Fried, C. (2015).Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA. Ibrahim, N., Ghadas, Z. A. A., Musa, M. K. (2015). " Domestic Contracts" The Effect of Family Contracts; The Malaysian Law Perspectives.Journal of Management Research,7(2), 387. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Oniyinde, O. A. (2017). Legal Reasoning in the Enforceability of Domestic Contracts in Law: A Legal Appraisal.JL Pol'y Globalization,63, 125. O'Sullivan, J., Hilliard, J. (2016).The law of contract. Oxford University Press. Spitko, E. G. (2016). The Will as an Implied Unilateral Arbitration Contract.Fla. L. Rev.,68, 49.