Latsch(puppy)2006 - MIKE SMITH and PAUL RAYMOND _ OPINION _...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
M IKE S MITH Proposed Claimant and P AUL R AYMOND Proposed Defendant _____________ OPINION _____________ 1. I am asked to advise on the merits of a proposed claim by Mike against Paul. The claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract by Paul with regard to the sale of a spaniel puppy and will depend on whether a valid contract was concluded between Mike Smith and Paul Raymond. Summary of advice 2. In my opinion, a valid contract has been formed, but this contract remains unenforceable. Therefore, I would strongly advise against commencing any legal proceedings. The annoncement – offer or invitation to treat? 3. The first issue concerns whether the newspaper announcement on 5 th November constitutes a valid offer. According to its format announcements in newspaper can be equated to advertisements of goods for sale, which are normally interpreted as invitations to treat (Partridge v Crittenden). However, advertisements may be construed as offers if they are unilateral that is open to all the world to accept ( Carill v
Background image of page 1

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

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

Page1 / 2

Latsch(puppy)2006 - MIKE SMITH and PAUL RAYMOND _ OPINION _...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online