Summary on Consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient and distinction between an invitation to treat and a contractual offer is difficult to draw. PDF

Preview

Summary

summary for essay question ...

Description

Discuss any TWO of the following statements: (a) To revoke a unilateral offer the offeree must receive actual notice of the revocation. (b) ‘Consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient.’ Discuss. (c) The distinction between an invitation to treat and a contractual offer is difficult to draw.

b) It is said that consideration is not getting benefit in return of some product but it is also known as mutuality and agreement. Consideration is a way by which it seems whether there was a valid exchange between the parties to legally enforce the contract. The definition of consideration can be taken from the case of ‘Currie v Misa’, which states that there should be a benefit to the person making the promise or a detriment made to the person to whom the promise is made. The concept of consideration needs to be adequate but it must be sufficient is the requirement that if something is being put forward must have some economic value if not same as product so that the courts will recognize it as a legally binding contract constituting of valid consideration. For example I get a car from my father and in return I pay nothing then the car will be considered of my father’s. But if I pay even $10 for that car I will be considered as the owner legally. This can be backed with the case of ‘Thomas v Thomas’, in which $1 was considered as a good consideration. The contract maker is known to be the boss of his/her and has full authority to put terms in the contract of his/her choice. There is a freedom of contract in civil matters, and so the courts necessarily don’t intervene in every matter. But there are some contracts in which the value of a product is not adequate. This can be followed in the case of Edmonds V Lawson in which there was no contract between pupil and pupil master as relationship was not considered as a consideration. This means that there needs to be some value which is not adequate but sufficient, that value will be considered by the courts as a legally binding consideration. Another case that can be referred is the case of ‘Chappell v Nestle’, in this case the chocolate wrappers were considered to have some economical value if not much. There are some existing duties under the law which are not said to be as good considerations. For example the police has an existing duty of protecting people generally and try finding stolen items but if there is a unilateral contract of finding something that has been stolen in return of a reward, a police officer cannot claim that reward as police has an existing duty to find and return stolen things and to keep crime rate low in an area. But as in the case of ‘Glassbrooke V GCC.’ where police performed extra for the mine owner qualified for the payment he offered for extra security. It is also a pre-existing duty under the law on parents in which they have to raise child but there was an exception in the case of ‘Ward v Byham.’ Where raising child HAPPILY was considered something extra.

The discussion above backed with the case laws clearly highlights what the term ‘consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient’ means. But consideration would not be sufficient in any case if it has no economic value at all.

c) The difference between offer and an invitation to treat is often questioned. There are long debates available in this regard. In past distinction among them was unclear but slowly it became vivid as case laws in their regard developed. The law has clearly defined the characteristics that distinguish offer from an invitation to treat. For something to amount to an offer, the offeror must make a crystal clear statement that he will be legally bound to perform his promise if the other party accepts his offer. Treitel defined an offer as “an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed.” The difference between offer and IIT and communication and intention. If the communication is specific in terms of obligations and is made with clear intention to be bound legally by the mere fact of acceptance and there is no further room for negotiation then it constitutes an offer. We get this rule from the case of Storer v Manchester CC where the court held that there was, indeed, a binding contract because there was intention to be bound. Lord Denning stated “In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in a man’s mind. You look at what he said and did”. In the case of Gibson v Manchester CC, it was held that there was no contract because the Council had not made an offer capable of acceptance as the offer was not clear on the terms as it was stated that the council may be prepared to sell the house to Gibson, which shows clearly a statement of intention but not a complete and clear offer. Although it was an invitation to treat. The clarity that displays of goods was an ITT was brought in the case of Boots v Pharmaceutical society where by placing the goods into the basket, it was the customer that made the offer to buy the goods and the pharmacist who had to accept the offer. Similar in the case of Fisher v Bell where defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. Statute made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was quashed as goods on display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. It is held that the advertisements are also construed to be Invitation to Treat the courts sough this rule from an old case of Partridge V Crittenden, wherein the defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale. The Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction. The

defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied. Having given clear and classic elements that distinguish offer from and invitation to treat it can be deduced that an offer by its very words is clear and definite for the offeree to comprehend and an invitation to treat is now how the modern world operates in big super markets and stop and buys, so, it may have been an elusive task to differentiate between an offer and acceptance but in this day and age it is clearly not.

As discussion above backed with case laws differentiates between offers from invitation to treat and vice versa....