100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.
misrepresentation to cover his loss after finding out that the material can be obtainedfree-of-charge from Kaplan Higher Education.(iii)Charleen v. AlanFor Charleen, she does not have the capacity, as it was clearly stated that she wastaking her GCE “O” levels this year, which means she is a minor. Not only does shehave no capacity, it was also presumed that there was no intention to form legalrelations with Alan as well, as she is his younger sister, making it a domesticagreement which is not rebuttable. On the morning of 2ndNovember 2015, Charleen told Alan that she was interested inpurchasing Alan’s material for $200 but all he did was smile, not convinced that hissister was really interested in purchasing. Case law Felthouse v Bindley (1862)relates closely to this situation, where theplaintiff’s nephew was putting his horse up for sale. The plaintiff got to know that andwrote to his nephew saying that if the plaintiff hears no more from the nephew, heshall consider the horse as his. The plaintiff’s nephew did not reply, but instead, informed an auctioneer about thesituation. However, due to a mistake by the auctioneer, the horse was sold away andthe plaintiff sued the auctioneer in the tort of conversion. However, as there was no contract formed between the plaintiff and his nephew, thecourt held the plaintiff had no claim, as there was no acceptance communicated, withthe notion that silence is no acceptance.After Charleen told Alan that she was interested in purchasing the material, she askedif she could pay him on 6thNovember instead, which was a counter offer as shesuggested a change in payment date. Alan however, was more concerned about hisfavorite football team’s match so he nodded and went back to sleep. This shows thatthere was no meeting of minds, which is another point, as Alan actually had nointention to form legal relations with Charleen. There was a similar situation in case law Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), inwhich the plaintiff saw an advertisement in the newspaper placed by the defendantstating that Carbolic Smoke Ball Company would reward 100 English pounds to
anyone out there who bought and used their smoke ball correctly but still caught theflu. The plaintiff followed the instructions in the advertisement, but still caught the flu.The company refused to pay when the plaintiff tried claiming for the 100 Englishpounds reward, claiming that there was no binding agreement. The matter wasbrought up to the court and it was held that the plaintiff can claim the 100 Englishpounds reward as she complied with the terms in order to get the reward as stated inthe advertisement. As stated above, Charleen is a minor as she is below the age of 18 year old and thelaw protects minor from entering into any legal contract as they may not know orunderstand fully the consequences of that act. Unless it is stated that it is fornecessities.