Introduction "Introduction to business law in Singapore" was sold by Alan to three different people,namely Bernard, Charleen and Damien. Later, Bernard and Damien realized that the bookhad been released free of charge by Kaplan. Legal issues involve whether a contract isformed between the parties involved and the role of the individual in the case. At the sametime, possible alternatives to handling the problem, other than compensation, should also beproposed.Contract formation IssueBernard, Charleen and Damien conducted different transactions with Alan for the same bookthat was released free of charge by Kaplan. This dispute will need to prove whether there areany legally binding contracts between the parties that have been established.RuleA contract is valid when it is an agreement, including "offer" and "acceptance". It meansthere is consensus among the parties. These agreements are only considered effective whenthe aspects are clear. Therefore, a "vague" agreement, incomplete or constitutes a contractand will not be enforced.A consideration is mandatory by the Australian Government to ensure the benefits of parties,which stipulates that gratuitous promises will not be made. However, according to thedoctrine of promissory estoppel the execution of the agreement even lacks the existence of avalid review. This is meant to protect the promisee in case the promisor denied theresponsibility of the view and alleges that the promise was not enforced lawfully [Ped01].A contract is legal when the parties intend to create a legal relationship. Mostly, when aconsideration of the parties is conducted will be evidence to prove intention, but not always.In specific cases, the court will require proof of onus to conduct the investigation. Often,commercial transactions will be considered legal consequences while social commitments arenot [JWC96].In the case there is a social and domestic relationship, which meaning the relationshipbetween friend or family, it will be considered as no intention of binding a legal contract. ApplicationFor the case of Alan v. Bernard initially had no contract between them because Alan hadrefused Bernard's offer. However, then, when Bernard sent the money, although kept silent,but then Alan accepted the money. That suggests there is an intention to create a contract byAlan. So a contract was formed between them and Bernard sued Alan for his later sale of apartial offer to Damien. Furthermore, Alan did not hand over all his offer and did notannounce that the grant was free of charge by Kaplan. That means that Alan created themisrepresentation, and the break of the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA).In the case of Charleen, since the two had a close relationship, that was evidence of bothhaving no intention to confirm a legal relationship, so no contract was formed between them.
For Alan v. Damien, although the offer was not sent directly to Damien, however, Alanaccepted the money and then promised to submit the document on 07 of Nov. That means anagreement was made between the two of them, proof of a binding legal contact. However,