86%(21)18 out of 21 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.
Alan V Bernard, V Charleen, V DamienThe legal issue that has arisen in this question is whether a legal binding contract has be formed between Alan and Bernard, Charleen and Damien pertaining Alan’s intention to sell off his Commercial Law textbook “Introduction to Business Law In Singapore” and the noteshe has taken in an exercise book over the course of the module. The legal issues asked in the question are the legal positions Bernard, Charleen and Damien hold against Alan and the remedies and alternative dispute resolutions that Alan can undertake. We will also look at the various principles of law that occurs in the individual cases. 1)Alan v Bernard In the case of Alan and Bernard, he was the first offeree to respond to Alan’s offer on Facebook. However Bernard did not accept the terms of Alan’s offer and instead reverted with a counter-offer of $150. The principle of law in regards to counter-offers tells us that once a counter-offer has been given, the initial offer by the offeror is void and is no longer open for the offeree to accept. In the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132, Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for 1000 Pounds. Hyde counter-offered 950 Pounds. When Wrench rejected it, Hyde attempted to accept the initial offer of 1000 Pounds but Wrench refused to sell and Hyde filed a claim. The Court upheld that there was no contract as when the counter-offer was made, the original offer is destroyed and is not open to the offeree to accept anymore. Similarly in Normile v. Miller, 326 S.E.2d 11 (1985), the defendant had listed a piece of real estate, which was shown to the plaintiff by a real estate broker on August 4. Normile submitted an offer which was stated to be responded by 5.00pm, August 5. Miller then sent a counter-offer which the broker presented to Normile. He neither rejected nor accepted the offer, instead deciding to wait out on a decision. The real estate broker on the impression that Page 1of 6
Normile was rejecting the offer based on the terms in it offered it to another potential offeree Segal at 12.30am on August 5. This offer was very similar to the defendant’s counter-offer and thus the defendant accepted it. At 2pm, the real estate broker informed Normile that the counter-offer was revoked. However, Normile went ahead and accepted and delivered the money deposit before 5pm. When the matter went to court, it was ruled that the defendant had killed Normile’s original offer with his counter-offer. Thus Normile could not accept the counter-offer once it has been revoked. Revocation had also been communicated to the plaintiff via the broker and thus the power of acceptance was void due to the revocation of thecounter-offer by the defendant.