Commercial Law Assignment - Alan v Bernard Charleen Damien...

Alan v. Bernard, Charleen & Damien
The legal issue regarding Alan would be if he would need to compensate the parties that are
involved. This conflict involves Bernard, Charleen and Damien. This conflict would also need
to prove if there were any contracts formed with the parties involved.
The proper term of law for this conflict would be the equitable doctrine of promissory
estoppel, which states that a promise is feasible by law, even if it was made without proper
consideration, and a promisee relies on the promise made to them by the promisor to their
disadvantage, leading to a contractual relationship being formed. This doctrine prevents the
promisor from backing out and disputing that the promise was not legally enforced,
therefore preventing the promisee from suffering a loss. In terms of contract law,
consideration is generally required in an agreement or promise, and in the form of
something with value in the eyes of the law. However, to guarantee fairness, a court may
rule in favour of the promise even with a lack of consideration if the promise made was
relied on and that reliance on the promise led to a disadvantage or detriment to the
promisee.
Alan v. Bernard
There was no contract formed between Alan and Bernard as Alan had already informed
Bernard that his offer of $150 has been declined due to the fact that the selling price is
$200, and that an offer has already been made by Damien. This is similar to the case of Hyde
v. Wrench [1840] 3 Bea 334; 49 ER 132 , where the defendant, Wrench, offered to sell his
farm to the plaintiff, Hyde at a sum of 1200 pounds, which Hyde declined. On the 6 th June
1840, Wrench proceeded to write a letter stating that he was making a final offer on his farm
to Hyde for 1000 pounds, at which Hyde made a counter-offer of 950 pounds to Wrench on
his return letter on the 8 th of June. After receiving the counter-offer, Wrench decided to
decline and inform Hyde of his decision on 27
th
June. On the 29
th
of June, Hyde tried to
accept the original offer made by Wrench to purchase the farm at 1000 pounds, but Wrench
had already revoked the offer, leading to Hyde taking legal action against Wrench, claiming
that Wrench has breached the contract between them.
Page
1
of
7

Applying the case of Hyde v. Wrench , in this situation Bernard is unable to take legal action
against Alan because when Bernard made his counter-offer of $150, it cancelled the original
offer of $200 from Alan. Alan rejected Bernard’s offer, and there was no agreement or
promise made by Alan that stated he would sell the textbook to Bernard after declining his
offer. At a later date, Bernard decides to accept Alan’s original offer and posted the cash
through mail to Alan’s home, which was not received by Alan until a much later date. This
case is similar to Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemicals [1953]
EWCA Civ 6 , in which the defendant, Boots Cash Chemicals, was accused by the plaintiff of
selling certain drugs without a pharmacist’s supervision, which was considered unlawful
practice at that point of time. However, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, as no