100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.
Alan V Bernard, Charleen and DamienThe legal questions here is whether Alan has to return any remedies to the parties that are involved in this conflict and to also find out whether there were any contract formed. The parties that are involved in this conflict are Bernard, Damien and Charleen. The proper term of law based on this conflict is based on equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. This doctrine has been stated that there is already a contractual relationship formed and there are some unforeseen situation that makes things hard for the parties to come out with the original agreement that can make both parties agree into the agreement then the waiting time of the unforeseen event that they are not allowed to go back to their promise in other words they are forbidden by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.Alan V Bernardin the case of Bernard and Alan there was no contract formed by the two parties. Carrying on, Alan had already told Bernard that his offer of $150 is being declined and that the selling price is $200 and that there is already an offer made by another person which is Damien. Similarly, in the case of Hyde V. Wrench (1840, 3 Bea 334;49 ER 132)Wrench offered to sell his farm in Luddendam to Hyde for a price of 1200pounds which Hyde had declined. On the 6thof June 1840 Wrench had written to Hyde’s agent to sell his farm 1000 pounds and also stating that was his final offer and that he will not back out from it. Hyde went to offer 950 pounds to Wrench on hisletter by 8thJune and after seeing the offer Wrench refused to accept and had informed Hyde of this on the 27thof June. On the 29thHyde had made his decision to purchase the farm for 1000 pounds without any other implementation from Wrench, Page 1of 8
after Wrench had refused to give it to Hyde, Hyde then went to sue Wrench for breaching his contract. party named as Damien.Following the of Hyde V. Wrench (IBID)in this case Bernard is unable to sue Alan because when he gave his counteroffer of $150 he was overwriting the original offer of $200 that was given by Alan in another word his counteroffer will be rejected by Alan. Carrying on, there was no agreement made by Alan saying that he will be selling the textbook to him after the declining of the offer. However, Bernard later then accepted the offer that was given by Alan and sent the cash in mail and send it to Alan’s house, Alan did not receive the cash until the 5thof November 2015 at the time of 5pm. A similar case to this is Owen V. Tunison, 131 Me. 42, 158 A. 926 (Me.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Carbolic Smoke Ball, Partridge v Crittenden