Have file

Contract Law
    Contract Law    Case Studies
    
    
Contents
Issue    2
Rule of Law    2
Application    2
Conclusion    6
References    9
Issue
Whether, there existed valid agreement between Jacob and the shop.
Whether, Iris can enforce the agreement
Whether, Hamid have any agreement
Whether, Ranbir have any valid agreement.
Rule of Law
Law of Contract, distinguishes an offer from the invitation to treat. Under the Contract Law, offer is considered as the actual proposal which comes from the offeror to the offeree, but clearly distinguishes an invitation to treat in the form of invitation which can be given to anyone or any particular group of people, so that they places their proposal, so that if accepted it can lead to the formation of the legal binding agreement.
Application
In the present facts of the case, an advertisement in newspaper stated the sound system of certain model is for sale at half price, with a contact number and place. Jacob on same day contacted the shop and had a word with Rhonda, a salesperson, and accepted the offer, but could not hear what Rhonda was trying to say. Again, Iris, left message on answering phone and stated that she will assume the set for her for the advertised price, unless she hears back, which was heard by the shop 3 days after the advert. On the other hand, Hamid enquired about buying the set, but for the payment at a later date, to which Rhonda wanted to check with her boss, but Hamid insisted coming next week on taking the set by paying fully. Rhonda told Hamid that all sets were sold by Jimmy, but Hamid wanted that one set must be sold to him. Ranbir ordered 10 sets, but Jimmy a salesperson, being unsure about the availability, informed him to send him if available. But, Ranbir changed his mind and cancelled the order, before the sets were delivered, which was later delivered.
Thus, an offer comes in the form of a proposal where one party wants to commit and enter into a legally binding contract with the other party .The offer can have many forms and varies through written form to ve
al and even can be construed from the implied conduct of the parties. But, an offer’s existence is solely dependent on the transparency of the terms within it, in such a way that, one who is making the offer must at the same time also intend to go through the binding obligation once it becomes accepted by the offeree. Courts in determining certain statements as offer, clearly emphasised on the legal enforceability of it, and separated it from mere puffs or invitation to treat, was held in case of (Wenzel v Australian Stock Exchange Limited, 2002), and also from those statements which are nothing but the supply of information requested by the one who is seeking it, was held in case of (Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2013). Mere puff is something in the form of exaggeration with asserted claims about certain products or services, which a reasonable person would think twice to take that as serious assertion was held in case of (Ian Donaldson Johnston v Filaria Pty Limited ACN 056 933 843 and Independent Group Pty Limited ACN 008 659 792 and Grahame O’Brien and Millie Phillips, 2004), thus having no contractual significance, and hence no binding force to constitute a valid agreement, was held in case of (Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd, 1990), and is also in parity with section 18 of the (Section 18- Misleading or deceptive conduct- Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), 2010) and also under the (Section 51- Publishing false or misleading advertisements- Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, 2002). So, invitations to treat is important in distinguishing them from offers, since offers have the binding obligations once accepted, which the former one do not have was held in case of (Harvey and Anor v Facey and Ors, 1893), followed by the decisions in case of (JS Robertson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Martin, 1956), (Aotearoa International Ltd v Scanca
iers A/S, 1985) and also in (MG Kailis Pty Ltd-v- Unitrade Holdings Ltd., 2005).
In the present facts of the case, an advertisement in newspaper stated the sound system of certain model for sale at half price, based on which the issue arises to those who replies to that advert, have the similarity with the landmark cases of (Carlill v Ca
olic Smoke Ball Company , 1892) and (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain...