0506 term1 paula n DD (with comments)

0506 term1 paula n DD (with comments) - Question 1 part A...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Question 1 part A Paula and DD had agreed on a contract, the terms factual terms being that Danny will try his utmost best as a professional dry-cleaning service provider to remove the stain on Paula’s dress. The consideration on Paula is the benefit of having her dress cleaned as best as possible, and the detriment suffered by her is parting with the $80 in dry-cleaning fees. The benefit enjoyed by DD is the fee of $80, and his detriment is the executory consideration that he has to remove the stains on Paula’s dress. The contract is most probably written on a work order or receipt issued by DD, in it would most likely include the basic terms of the contract. DD did mention that he “cannot guarantee removal of the stain”. We can say that Paula has accepted DD’s terms of contract, and that acceptance is final and unrequited of assent to the terms of offer. The rule is that acceptance of a contract must be accepted through communication to the offeror in order for it to be effective and binding. Paula had indicated that she accepted the contract by virtue of her paying in full for the dry-cleaning. From Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877), it has been established that acceptance “need not be confined to written or spoken words, but rather could take place as a form of conduct”. She then enters into another contract with DD, with her providing a consideration of paying him $10 in return of a benefit of having her gown delivered to her place. Under this contract, her detriment of $10 is an executory consideration, but a valid one nonetheless. We can therefore say that there is a second contract between Paula and DD, the root of the contract being DD delivering the gown to Paula for $10. Although the stain has been successfully removed by DD, he did leave a burnt mark on Paula’s $5,000 gown. Although not written in the works order, an implied term of the contract can be that DD would take reasonably good care of the dress, or at least return it to Paula in a better condition than when received by him. This implied term would satisfy the officious bystander test. That is to say, if a neutral third-party has asked DD and Paula at the point on contracting if DD, as an experienced and professional dry-cleaner, would leave burn marks on the gown; it is very foreseeable that both parties would say no. As with the case of Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926),
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern