Exam June 2020, answers PDF

Preview

Summary

1.In order to determine whether a contract has been made between Vanessa and Jim, we must establish whether there is an offer, and then determine if acceptance was effectively communicated to Vanessa in response.The first issue to analyse is whether their conversation at the coffee shop and the emai...

Description

1. In order to determine whether a contract has been made between Vanessa and Jim, we must establish whether there is an offer, and then determine if acceptance was effectively communicated to Vanessa in response.

The first issue to analyse is whether their conversation at the coffee shop and the email was an offer or a mere response to an inquiry. A legal offer would have to be one which is ‘an expression of willingness to be bound by the terms of the offer’ (Andrews, Contract Law). However, in Harvey v Facey it was held that responses to requests for information are not considered as an offer because it does not show offeror’s intention to be legally bound. By distinguishing the nature of communication between Vanessa and Jim, the email sent could be seen as a response to an inquiry as she had told him that she needed to ‘check’ before making an agreement. If so, Jim would not be able to make an acceptance thus there will be no contract made. Nonetheless, when Vanessa writes whether it is “acceptable” by Jim. This shows that there is a willingness to be bound because she had stipulated its method of acceptance by replying within 14 days. The certainty of terms shown here creates legal intention (Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company). Thus, Vanessa did make a legal offer to Jim.

Since we have determined that Vanessa’s email is an offer, we will now have to examine whether Jim has properly communicated his acceptance, which is the unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer. The general rule for acceptance by instantaneous communication is that the offeror; Vanessa must be notified about it by the offeree; Jim (Carlil). Here, Vanessa had already specified that Jim should notify his acceptance by replying via email within 14 days. Though he did reply via email within the given time period, acceptance here will only occur at the point where the offeror receives it (Entores v Miles Far East Cpn), unlike the postal rule where acceptance is communicated once the notification of acceptance is posted (Adams v Lindsell). In this case, the point of acceptance would be when Jim’s email lands in Vanessa’s inbox (Thomas v BPE Solicitors (a firm)). However, if the offeree reasonably believed that the offeror had received their acceptance, when in fact they have not due to their own fault, acceptance is still valid because success of communication would depend on

the offeror’s fault (Denning LJ in Entores). This has been applied on telefax communication in The Brimnes where even if the notice is not read due to the offeror’s own fault, acceptance still occurs. Therefore, the concept of fault can be applied here as Vanessa had failed to notify Jim regarding her issues with her email and forgetting to update him regarding her new email account. Since he had replied her within the given time period, he would have reasonably believed that she had accepted the email. Thus, the acceptance here has made the contract between Vanessa and Jim legally binding.

By applying the legal rules above, we can advise Vanessa that she has entered into a binding contract with Jim to supply the given number of flowers on the specified date....