100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 6 pages.
offer, in this case customers can take whatever they want or need any head over to the cashierand purchase it on their own. As for those products that needs clarification to purchase are forexample places like the pharmacy, doctors medical certificates is the only prove that they are allowed to purchase the goods that they need in this case this is not an invitation to treat, meaning to say that not everyone is entitled to purchase whatever they want. Following another case and the similar review of the case of Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball company (IBID) is also a case of Dickinson V Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463. The court had held that the offer was withdrawn and there was no contract formed between Dickson and Dodds and that the seller Alan is open to cancel the offer anytime he wants to and that he can accept the offerwhenever he wants because he is the seller and he can choose whomever he wants to sell it tobefore any acceptance unless the money had already been sent to him.Applying the principal of law establish in the Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball (IBID) and the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V Boots (IBID) case it can be argued that Alan being the seller and Damien being the buyer wanting to purchase the materials from Alan was only a bilateral offer because Alan had stated in his that he is selling his materials topeople who are students or are going to be enrolling in (KHEA) Kaplan Higher Education Page 5of 6
Academy. Alan’s offer was only an invitation to treat because his status had stated that he wasselling it for a cost of $200 and nothing else.As a counter argument to this case of Dickinson V Dodds (IBID). In this case Alan had not stated clearly that if anyone is interested in the sales of the materials, please by the 5thof November 2015. There was a certain timing given to purchase. But Alan had previously said to Damien that is already an offer made. Alan did not say anything and after the offer was made it had also cause complications and confusion to both the parties of Alan and Damien. In this case there was no breach of the contract made.In conclusion to the dispute above there are no contracts formed between Alan and Damien and that there were no contractual relationship formed as well. Alan should have also accepted Damien’s money and decline the sales to the other parties. By way of recommendation Alan will have to return $150 and also not to take any of the material back as the book is already given out for free by Kaplan Higher Education Academy and if he attempts to take the book back then Damien will have his legal rights to take action against him.Page 6of 6
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Partridge v Crittenden