in that module. Bernard was keen and went on to post on Alan’s Facebook post asking if he may pay $150 for the materials. On the night of 3rd November, Alan replied Bernard that he is rejecting his offer of $150, as he is selling it for $200. Alan included that in fact, there was an offer made already. Later on, Bernard had a change of mind and set to meet his value of $200. However, Bernard would not be able to meet Alan up as he was going overseas for three days. Therefore, he placed the $200 in an envelope and posted it to Alan on the 4th of November. When after, he informed Alan to look out for the money. On 5th November, 5:00pm, Alan received the cash in his mailbox. On 7th November, Alan passed Bernard the original “Introduction to Business Law” textbook while not the exercise book of notes as declared in his post. He told Bernard that his notes were written in the textbook given. In the case between Alan and Bernard, the first offer was already terminated upon a counter offer. From the given data, it is clear that Alan replied to Bernard stating that his offer is $200 and he can create no changes to it.
Therefore, Alan rejects Bernard’s offer of $150 and additionally informs him that someone has already concerned the offer. Hence, we are able to conclude that there was no contract between Alan and Bernard as Bernard’s initial offer was rejected and additionally told that the offer is not valid any longer because it is taken. Following up with the case of Dickson v Dodds (1876) , it is told that it is too late to simply accept an offer once it is taken up by another person, the contract is terminated. In consequence, Alan’s Facebook post becomes an invitation of treat to Bernard. In Hyde v Wrench (1840) the provide was refused and afterward, the complainant sought-after to simply accept the initial provide. It was held that no contract was formed because the initial offer was terminated by the counter offer. From that, we are able to come to a conclusion that Bernard’s offer does not legally bind them in an offeror-offeree relationship, unless Alan accepts Bernard’s second offer of $200, also tell that the $200 Bernard sent Alan was not involving a contract, therefore is Alan’s act of giving Bernard his textbook. In this case, Bernard will not be able to sue Alan. The case of Charleen v Alan On the morning of 2nd November, Charleen, the younger sister of Alan, saw Alan’s Facebook post and proceeded on to tell Alan concerning her interest to get the materials. She additionally told that she's going to get those material for the $200 required. However, she inquired him if she could make the payment on the 6th of November rather than the date stated, that is on, the 5th November. Alan nodded his head as a gesture of agreement. On 6th November, immediately after receiving her allowance, Charleen placed the $200 on Alan’s table. In this case of Charleen v Alan, because it is stated that she was taking her GCE “O” levels, it is clear that she could be a minor, she has no legal capacity, therefore, she would not be able to legally form a contract along with her brother, Alan. pertaining to the case of Nash v Inman (1908) , minors’ contracts are invalid. Exceptionally, in the case of
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Spring '15
- sue Alan, Alan’s post