100%(29)29 out of 29 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.
Alan v. Bernard, Charleen & DamienThe 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. BernardThere 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 Hydev. Wrench  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 6thJune 1840, Wrench proceeded to write a letter stating that he was making a final offer on his farmto Hyde for 1000 pounds, at which Hyde made a counter-offer of 950 pounds to Wrench on his return letter on the 8thof June. After receiving the counter-offer, Wrench decided to decline and inform Hyde of his decision on 27thJune. On the 29thof 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 1of 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  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