{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


B will ague that the locking up of the dogs

Info iconThis preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
B will ague that the locking up of the dogs constituted a signal to B that the offer had been accepted. B will argue that F had indicated that this should happen were the deal to go ahead. Her doing of the action then constituted acceptance. F will respond that this arrangement is too vague for an acceptance to be inferred. F never actually said that locking up the dogs was to be a signal of acceptance. B will also point F’s conduct in seeing him begin work. B will draw an analogy with
Background image of page 2

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
the case of Empirnall v Machon Paull . In Empirnall M was told that the director of the E did not sign contracts. E nonetheless accepted the benefit of work done by M, in the knowledge the work was being done on the basis of a contract proposed by M. E was held to have accepted the contract proposed by the party on the basis of this conduct. In this case B will argue that F stood by and watched B work and that this conduct effectively constituted acceptance of the benefit of his work. F may retort that she did not realise B was going to do all of the work. She went out half way through. This does not seem a strong argument. It must have been apparent to F that B was intent on doing the work. My opinion is that F may be found to have accepted the offer from B on this basis. Consideration Prima facie, if it can be concluded that the parties have made a contract, there is no issue of consideration in this dispute. Consideration for a contract may be found in the mutual exchange of promises. F may argue that there was no good consideration for any promise she may have made to pay B $ 100 to fix the fence. B had already been contracted by the School to do the work and thus was already obliged to complete it. B can respond that a promise to perform an existing contractual duty owned to a third party can constitute good consideration. This principle was demonstrated in the Pao On case. There the plaintiff made the same promise which constituted valid consideration to two parties, the selling company and its shareholders. Thus it seems on the facts given that this issue will not preclude F from having to pay B. Intention to create legal relations
Background image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page2 / 4

B will ague that the locking up of the dogs constituted a...

This preview shows document pages 2 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online