100%(29)29 out of 29 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.
Another similar case is Jones v. Padavatton EWCA Civ 4, in which the mother had agreed to buy her daughter a house if she gave up her job at the Indian Embassy and study for the bar in England, and she also offered to pay her daughter maintenance. However, when her daughter got married and did not complete her studies, Mrs. Jones sought to repossess the house, which the daughter, Mrs. Padavatton tried to take legal actions against.The court ruled that there was no binding legal relations between the plaintiff and defendant as they were mother and daughter, which means that the agreement between them was merely a social and domestic agreement. With reference to the main principle of law that was established in both cases of Balfour v. Balfourand Jones v. Padavatton, it can be argued that there was no contractual relationship formed between Alan and Charleen as he did not acknowledge her offer nor did he accept it.Charleen took Alan’s silence as consent, which does not count as acceptance as acceptance must be positive and not passive. A case similar to this situation is Felthouse v. Bindley  EWHC CP J 35, where Felthouse, the plaintiff, offered to buy his nephew’s horse for Page 3of 7
30 pounds and stated in a letter to his nephew saying that if he did not respond, Felthouse would take his nephew’s silence as consent and claim the horse. However, as the nephew was busy with auctions on his farm, he did not respond and Felthouse took it as he acceptedthe offer. The man running the auctions, Bindley, had accidentally sold the horse off which led to Felthouse taking legal action against Bindley, saying that he had a valid contract with his nephew and that the horse was his property. Regarding that issue, the court ruled in favour of the defendant as silence does not constitute acceptance, and since the nephew didnot communicate his acceptance to Felthouse, there was no contract made and hence no legal relations. With reference to Felthouse v. Bindley, Alan and Charleen did not have an agreement as Alan did not accept her offer as he remained silent and hence there was no contract between them. As a counter-argument, it can be said that Alan was also in the wrong for accepting her money and that he did not inform her that he already formed a deal with another party. Hence, as a remedy to this conflict, Alan should fully repay Charleen the $200 as he did not sell any of his materials to her.Alan v. DamienIn the case of Alan and Damien, there was no conflict between the aforementioned parties and there was a contract made between them as Alan had accepted Damien’s offer. However, there was a breach in contract as Alan had violated Section 13 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA), as evidenced before in Bernard and Alan’s case, where Alan had wrongfully advertised his goods on Facebook, and based on the description of the goods Bernard and Damien made offers to Alan but did not receive what they thought they purchased. In this case, Alan stated that he was selling his original textbook and handwrittennotes but he passed Damien a new textbook that he bought from the bookshop and his handwritten notes in an exercise book. Hence, this was a violation of the term Correspondence by Description under the Sale of Goods Act and Damien has the legal authority to take action against Alan.