Table of Content

Title Page
Assignment pages Part A Step1: State the issue or problem 1

Step 2: Explain the law 1-8

Step 3: Link law to the question 9

Step 4: Conclusion or summary 10

Part B Step1: State the issue or problem 10

Step 2: Explain the law 11-14
Step 3: Link law to the question 14
Step 4: Conclusion or summary 15
References 16

Part A.

Step 1
On 1st August 2014, Janice is offering Mike about her retail business Monaco Ltd. It means
that the offer is valid in this case. On 2 August Mike posted a letter to accept the offer,
however on 3 August he has changed his mind to withdraw the offer through a phone call but
Janice was out of the town. The offer and acceptance happened when Janice offers her retail
business the Monaco Ltd and Mike has agree to buy the company from Janice. When Janice
got back to home she had seen the letter first before she heard the message from Mike.
According to portal rule, the acceptance is valid this is because Mike has sent the acceptance
letter to Janice and Janice had saw the letter first. As a general rule when acceptance is
complete, an agreement is formed so that there is no question of revocation. This is illustrated
in the English case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974). By referring to the postal rule
and the actual chronology of the situation there is a contract formed between Janice and
Mike.

Step 2
 Offer in the Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when one signifies to
another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the
assent of that other to the act or abstinence. In the case of CARLILL v CARBOLIC
SMOKE BALL CO. LTD [1893] 1 QB 256 (Lawnix n.d).

The facts is Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. advertised that they would offer 1,000 to
anyone who still getting influenza after using the remedy for certain period. The plaintiff duly
used it but, nevertheless, contracted influenza. The plaintiff than sued for the money.

The issue in this case is Does one who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of the
goods by means of an advertisement impliedly waive notification of acceptance, if his
purpose is to sell as much product as possible?

The reason of the courts decision is the court held that the person who makes an offer
may decline to require notice of acceptance if he or she wishes. One who makes an offer
dispense with the requirement of notice of acceptance if the form of the offer shows that
notice of acceptance is not required. To accept an offer, the person just needs to follow the
indicated method of acceptance. If the offer or expressly or impliedly in his offer that it is
sufficient to act without giving notice of acceptance, Performance is sufficient acceptance
without notifications. The court also held that advertisement is considered an offer when the
indicated quantity of person who eligible to accept its terms. If the advertisement requires a
performance then the offeror is not required to give notice of his performance.

As a conclusion, the plaintiff was entitled to the 1,000 as she had accepted the offer
made to the world at large.

Invitation to treat an invitation to treat is a mere declaration of willingness to enter into

negotiations; it is not an offer, and cannot be accepted so as to form a binding contract. In the
case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401 (Denovo, 2012).

The fact is Pharmacy and Poisons Act s.18 no person shall sell certain poisons
(drugs) w/o supervisions of pharmacist. The case depended whether there was a sale when a
customer selected items he wished to buy and placed them in his basket. Payment was to be
made at the exit where a cashier was stationed and, in every case involving drugs, a
pharmacist supervised the transaction and was authorized to prevent a sale.

The issue is at what stage of purchase in a self-service store is there an acceptance of

offer?

The reason of the courts decision is Somervell, writing for the court makes an
analogy to a bookseller; the customer is still browsing while putting items in their basket and
there has been no acceptance until completed at the checkout. As a result a shopkeepers
display cannot be an offer and must be an invitation to treat. The logical conclusion of the
plaintiffs argument would be that once a customer put an item in the basket they would be
committed to the purchase and would not be able to change their mind.

As a conclusion, the display, even with prices marked, was only an invitation to treat.
A proposal to buy was made when the customer put the articles in the basket. Hence the
contract would only be made at the cashiers desk. As such, the shop owners had not made an
unlawful sale.

Acceptance according to section 2 (b) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when the
person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to have
been accepted. The case of Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 344-49 ER 132 and Entores
Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation .

Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 344-49 ER 132

The fact is the defendant offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff on 6 June for 1000.
On 8 June, in reply, the plaintiff made a counter-proposal to purchase at 950. When the
defendant refused to accept this offer on 27 June, the plaintiff wrote again that he was
prepared to pay the original sum demanded.

The issue was there a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff?

The reason of the courts decision is according to Lord Langdale stated that under the
circumstances in this bill, the judge think there exists no valid binding contract between the
parties for the purchases of the property. The Defendant offered to sell it for 1000, and if
that had been at once unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect
binding contract; instead of that, the Plaintiff made an offer of his own, to purchase the
property for 950, and he thereby rejected the offer previously made by the Defendant, I
think that it was not afterwards competent for him to revive the proposal of the Defendant, b
tendering an acceptance of it; and that, therefore, there exists no obligation of any sort
between the parties; the demurrer must be allowed.

As a conclusion, Plaintiff offer to buy 950 constituted a counter offer; effectively a

rejection of the original offer and a new offer. Once rejected, an offer cannot be revived by
subsequent acceptance.

Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (Mcgill1l, n.d)

The fact is the Plaintiffs are an English company. The Defendants are an American
corporation with agents all over the world, including a Dutch company in Amsterdam. The
Plaintiffs say that the contract was made by Telex between the Dutch company in Amsterdam
and the English company in London. Communication by Telex is comparatively new. Each
company has a teleprinter machine in its office; and each has a Telex number like a telephone
number. When one company wishes to send a message to the other, it gets to the Post Office
to connect up the machines. Then a clerk at one end taps the machine on to his machine just
as if it were a typewriter and it is instantaneously passed to the machine at the other end
which automatically types the message on to paper at that end.

The issue is when and where the contract was formed?

There are two reasons of the Court Decision:

When?
 - Where people are face to face, a contract is made law after the offer is made, the
acceptance is communicated, and the offeror has heard the acceptance. The
offeror is bound ONLY when he hears the acceptance.
- When an offer is made by Telex, the offeror must receive the acceptance. The
line may go dead on either side, or the machine of the offeror may run out of ink.
The offeror must send notice to the acceptor of not receiving. The contract only
becomes law when the message is received.

Where?

- In US law, the telex contract is like a post contract. It became law, and is subject
to the rules of the country where the acceptance is received.
- In European law, the telex contract becomes law where the acceptance was
received, like Dennings rule stated.

As a conclusion, the acceptance which is sent by an instantaneous method of

communication must be received to be effective. This is an exception to the postal
rule.

Postal Rule is a rule of contract law that makes an exception to the general rule that an
acceptance is only created when communicated directly to the offer or as it is explain in
Adams v Lindsell [1818] 1 B Ald 681. (Caelum 2013)

The fact is on September 2, 181. Defendants, dealers in wool, offered certain quantity
of wool to Plaintiffs at a certain price, requesting an answer in due course of post By
mistake, Defendants misdirected the mail. It was not received by Plaintiffs until September
9th then the defendants had sent mail accepting the offer December 5th. Defendants received
Plaintiffs acceptance Sept 9th and Before Defendants received Plaintiffs acceptance, the had
sold the wool to a third party

The issue was there a contract between the parties?

The Reason of the court decision the court decision on this matter is using the postal
rule which state if acceptance by post has been requested or where it is an appropriate and
reasonable means of communication between parties; acceptance is complete as soon as the
acceptance is posted.

As a conclusion, a binding contract was made when the plaintiff posted the letter of
acceptance on September 5th, so the defendant was in breach of the contract.

Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1878) (casebrief, n.d)

The fact is Grant negotiated to purchase in Household Fire. His application was
accepted, and his name was added to the list of registered shareholders, however, the letter
informing the appellant of this never reached him and thus Grant never paid for the shares.
His earnings from dividends were credited to his account. Eventually Household Fire went
into liquidation and the liquidator applied for money from appellant. He refused to pay on the
grounds that he was not a shareholder he had never received the notifications in the mail
and was not aware. The trial judge found that the appellant implied that the respondent was to
send him the notification that he had been issued the shares in the mail by requesting them by
mail, and therefore they were not to be penalized for sending the notification that way. The
liquidator was thus su9ccessful at recovering the money, which Grant appealed.

The issue is when do acceptance becoming binding when they are sent via mail?

The reason of the court decision is Thesiger and Baggallay agree with the trial judges
decision that the contract was formed when the acceptance was mailed. They discuss the pros
and cons of the postal rule, and decide that the pros outweigh the cons. The state that the
offeror can always choose to make the acceptance binding only upon his receipt of the
notification that it has been accepted in the original offer. However, to state that this must
happen in all cases would reduce the efficiency in this business world. The contract is
complete and absolutely binding upon transmission of acceptance through the mail as long as
that is a medium of communication that the parties contemplated as at the time of mailing
there is a meeting of the minds. Bramwell, in the dissent, disagrees and gives several
examples of situations where he believes that the postal rule would hinder transactions. He
says generally that the notice of acceptance must reach the party who made the offer before it
can be considered binding. He says that if the rule proposed in the majority is accepted then it
must be adhered to in all instances of notices via mail. For example, if you mail money to
someone in an acceptance, then you have paid even if the money never reaches the other
party.

As a conclusion, Thesiger majority held there was a valid contract.

Exception to the postal rule is an offeror may avoid the postal rule by making it a term of
their offer that acceptance will only take effect when it is communicated to them as is
explained in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974) (casebrief, n.d).

The fact is Hughes granted a six-month option to purchase a property, and stated that
the option had to be exercised by notice in writing. Before the six months were up.
Holwells lawyer wrote to Hughes lawyer stating that this his client was exercising his
option, and also included a cheque for the deposit. Holwells lawyer sent a copy of the letter
to Hughes by mail, but it was never delivered. Hughes refused to sell the property and
Holwell sued for breach. Hughes was successful at the lower court and Holwell appealed.

The issue is when does the postal rule always apply?

The reason of the court decision is, if the postal rule applies, then there is clearly a
contract as the agent of Holwell mailed the acceptance. Here the judges say that although the
parties intended to use the post as the means to communicate acceptance, they have not
displaced the general rule of acceptance that it requires communication. The use of the
words notice in writing meant that Hughes required actual notice of acceptance. The postal
rule does not apply when the terms of a contract point to the necessity of actual
communication, even if the post is the desired medium of communication. The recipient does
not actually have to read or understand the acceptance; it must just arrive and be seen by the
offeror.

As a conclusion, by requiring notice in writing, Dr Hughes had specified that he had

to actually receive the communication and had therefore excluded the postal rule.
When an acceptance is made by an instant mode of communication, such as telephone or
telex, the postal rule does not apply. This can be explained by Entores v Miles Far East
Corporation (1955) and Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl GmbH (1983)

Entores v Miles Far East (1955) as already explained on page 4.

Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl GmbH (1953) (Casebrief, n.d)

The fact is Brinkibon, located in London, telexed their acceptance of a contract offer
to purchase steel from Stahl in Vienna. Brinkibon, alleging breach, wanted to serve the
respondent with a writ claiming damages for breach in England, but Stahag claimed they
were not under British Jurisdiction. The lower courts found for Stahag Stahl, saying the
contract was created in Austria and thus had to go through Austrian courts.

The issue is where is a contract created when it is between parties in two

jurisdictions?

The reason of the courts decision is in this case follows the similar case of Entores
Ltd v Miles Far East Corp (Page 4). This found that in cases of instantaneous
communication, the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror,
and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received. In this case, the
acceptance was delivered to the offeror in Vienna, thus Austria has jurisdiction over the issue.
Lord Wilberforce goes on to discuss the implications of the rules of instantaneous
communication at length. He states that no universal rule of acceptance can cover all cases of
instantaneous communication they must be resolved with references to the intentions of the
parties, and the specific circumstances of the case.

As a conclusion, the judges that the contract was formed in Vienna. They accepted the
principle in Entores v Miles Far East Corporation where in the case of instantaneous
communication, which includes telex, the formation generally, occurs in the place where the
acceptance is received.
Communication of revocation of acceptance, It must be actually communicated to the person
who made to offer to you and the proposal may be withdrawn in any of the following ways:
1. communicating the notices of revocation by the proposer to the party to whom the proposal
was made. 2 The time prescribed in the proposal for its acceptance elapses, or if no time is
prescribed for acceptance by the lapse of a reasonable time. 3 The failure of the acceptor to
fulfill a condition precedent to an acceptance. 4 The death or mental disorder of the proposer
if the fact of the proposers death or mental disorder comes to the knowledge of the acceptor
before acceptance. As in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) (Casebrief, n.d)

The fact is on October 1st Van Tienhoven mailed a proposal to sell 1,000 boxes of tin
plates to Byrne at a fixed price. On October 8th, Van Tienhoven mailed a revocation of offer,
however that revocation was not received until the 20th. In the interim, on October 11th, Byrne
received received the original offer and accepted by telegram and turned around and resold
the merchandise to a third party on the 15th. Byrne brought an action for non-performance.

The issue is what is the relation between the postal acceptance rule and revocation?

The reason of the courts decision is Lindley held that the revocation of the offer was
not effective until it had been communicated to Byrne. While the postal rule remains good
law for acceptance, he finds no support for the premise that revocation of an offer is also
completed once it has been put in the mail. As a result, the revocation was not communicated
to Byrne until the 20th, at which point the contract was already formed and thus revocation is
no effect. To rule otherwise would be impractical for commercial realities.

As a conclusion, Lindley J held that the withdrawal of the offer was not effective until
it was communicated.

As such any subsequent revocation after acceptance is communicated is invalid as in the case
of (Routledge v Grant) (1828)

The fact is Grant wrote to Routledge offering to purchase the lease of his house. The
offer was to remain open for six weeks. Grant then change his mind about purchasing the
lease and, within the six weeks, withdrew his offer. After Routledge had received Grants
letter withdrawing the offer, he wrote back to Grant, within the six weeks, accepting Grants
offer.

The issue is whether Grant could withdraw his offer within six week period or
whether he was bound contractually given that Routledge had accepted the offer within the
timescale?

The reason of the court decision is, If one part has six weeks to accept an offer, the
other has six week to put an end to it. One party cannot be bound without the other. The
offeror (Grant) did not have to keep his offer for any specific time and, as chief justice best
put it, till both parties are agreed, either has a right to be off.

As a Conclusion, the offer could be withdrawn within the six week period without
incurring any liability.

Step 3

Janice composed a letter to Mike about she offering her retail business Monaco Ltd on
first August and she likewise say to Mike that this is a dire deal as per Section 2(a) of the
Contracts Act 1950 gives that when one connotes to an alternate his ability to do or to avoid
doing anything, with a perspective to acquiring the consent of that other to the demonstration
or forbearance, consequently on the first regal when Janice composed the letter there is an
affirm offer that happen from Janice to Mike.

In the circumstances above on Saturday second August 2014, Mike posted a letter
tolerating the offer. As per segment 2 (b) of the Contracts Act 1950 gives that when the
individual to whom the proposal is made connotes his consent thereto, the proposal is said to
have been acknowledged. On second August Mike acknowledge Janice offer about acquiring
her retail business. As indicated by the above segment when an individual connotes his
consent thereto, which makes Mike has acknowledged the offer.

At the point when the postal rule applies in this condition which verification that Mike
has acknowledged the offer without actually telling Janice b himself on the grounds that in
the postal rule expressed that acknowledgement is finished after posting may be rejected by
the express terms of the offer which makes when Mike post the letter of acknowledgement on
second August to Janice which implies that he acknowledge the offer yet Janice said that
please tell me by sixth of August which imply that Mike need to really tell Janice that he
acknowledge the offer furthermore make postal rule unessential as critical deal need
immediate correspondence and utilizing the post will be to moderate. In view of this the
acknowledgement of the offer just happens on the sixth of August and not when the letter was
posted.

Revocation through telephone by voice-mail is invalid in light of the fact that

revocation of acceptance need to by express specifically to the individual not by other option
path, for example, voice-mail. In page 6 it expressed that there are 4 approaches to withdrawn
the proposal. Just with these 4 ways can a proposal be withdrawn.

Since on the Wednesday 6 August Janice had open the letter of acceptance that Mike's
sent on the second August which implies that acceptance by postal rule is powerful and the
revocation of acceptance by means of telephone is invalid on the grounds that Janice open the
letter first than hear the voice-mail.

Step 4

As a conclusion, The agreement has been concluded between Janice and Mike on the
grounds that on 2nd August Mike post the letter of acceptance to Janice even though that
Janice stated that it is an urgent sale and to notify her on 6th August which make the postal
rule doesn't apply in this situation but Mike had already sent the letter to Janice which makes
Postal rule apply in this situation and when Mike try to revoke the acceptance the message
does not transfer directly to Janice and it stuck in the voicemail machine and on the 6th
August Janice open the letter first than only open the voicemail which contain the revocation
of acceptance from Mike. So as I would like to think there is an agreement between Janice
and Mike.
PART B

Step 1

In this situation Janice offer Samantha to offer her auto for RM 34,000 and she
expressed that the offer 'stays open for a week from today' which implies from first July until
sixth July the offer still stay open for Samantha as per section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950
gives that when one individual means to an alternate his ability to do or to refuse doing
anything, with a perspective to acquiring the consent of that request to the demonstration or
forbearance. On July second Samantha posted a letter saying "RM 34000 is a lot of yet I offer
you RM 30000". In this circumstance Samantha counter-offer Janice unique offer which
makes the first offer dead. In place the counter-offer to be compelling there must be an
acceptance between the two gatherings or there is no agreement. On the fifth of July Janice
read the first letter which contains the counter-offer which makes Janice qualified for stop the
agreement and quest for an alternate purchaser which is Thomas, accordingly Samantha can't
implement the agreement against Janice.

Step 2

Offer in the Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when one signifies to
another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the
assent of that other to the act or abstinence. Offer can be explain by reviewing the Gibson v
Manchester City Council (1979) (Lawschoolcasebriefs, n.d)

The truth of the matter is Conservative decision gathering of Manchester City Council
had an arrangement of offering chamber houses to occupants. After the decisions, the Labor
Party picked up control of the chamber, canceling offering approach. The Labor Party
however consents to respect all past assertions. Gibson was in the arranging stage and gave a
letter from chamber that they "may be arranged to offer at a cost of 2,775 les 20% freehold"
expressing that the letter was not a firm offer of a home loan. Gibson was welcome to make
formal application for buy and to fill in structure. Gibson finishes and returns structure,
leaving the value clear because of repairs which are required on the house. Chamber
expresses that they took repairs into settling value, Gibson requests procedure to proceed.
 The fact is when do the words may be willing to sell consist of a contract?

The reason of the courts decision is Since the council's answer did not consist of an
agreed statement pronouncing an agreement, and instead uses the wording of "may be willing
to sell", no agreement was established. The court held that he Council's letter was not an
offer as the letter stated that "The Corporation may be arranged to sell the house to you" and
that "In the event that you might want to make formal application to purchase your Council
house, please finish the enclosed application structure and return it to me as soon as possible.
"As there was never an offer accessible to be acknowledged, no agreement had been shaped
and by extension the council had not been in breach.

As a conclusion, thats no contract was held since the traditional approach of offer and
acceptance is preferred.

Acceptance according to section 2 (b) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when
the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to
have been accepted. This can be explained in Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

The truth of the matter is Felthouse arranged to purchase a horse from his nephew.
There was a misunderstanding with the cost, as the uncle offered less than the nephew
desired. The uncle gave distinct offer to the nephew in January; however no response stayed
in the possession of the nephew. In February the nephew sold the greater part of his
homestead stock in closeout, and the horse, despite the nephew's instructions that it be
reserved, was sold. Felthouse sued the barker, Bindley, in conversion to recuperate the horse.
Felthouse was successful at trial, accepting 33, which Bindley appeated.

The issue is Did the nephew accept his uncles offer, or was the horse still his
property at the time of the auction?

The reason of the courts decision is Willes, writing for unanimous court, says that it
is clear here that nothing had been done at the time of the auction to imply that the property
had changed hands to the uncle, and the nephew had given no acceptance. Therefore with no
acceptance of implied acceptance through actions the property remained that of the nephew at
the time of the auction, and the uncle has no case against the auctioneer for selling goods that
were not owned by the nephew. If the nephew wanted to enter into the contract he must have
given cleat indication of his acceptance, which he had failed to do.

As a conclusion, the nephews acceptance had not been communicated to the uncle.
The horse did not therefore belong to him.

There are 7 requirements to make acceptance valid which are (Shivamlawworld, 2012)

- Acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. An acceptance must be

unconditional and unqualified.
- Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. If the offeror remains silent and
does nothing to show that he has accepted the offer.
- Acceptance must be within a reasonable time. Acceptance to be valid must be
made within the time allowed by the offeror and if no time is specified, it must be
made within a reasonable time.
- It must be according to the mode prescribed or usual or reasonable mode.
Acceptance has to be made in the manner prescribed.
- The acceptor must be aware of the proposal at the time of the offer. Acceptance
follow offer. It the acceptor is not aware of the existence of the offer and conveys
his acceptance, no contract comes into being.
- Acceptance must be given before the offer lapses or before the offer is revoked.
- Acceptance cannot be implied from silence. No contract is formed if the offeree
remains silent and does nothing to show that he has accepted the offer.

Counter-Offer is an offer made in response to a previous offer by the other party

during negotiations for final contract. A counter offer rejects the prior offer, and
requires an acceptance under the terms of the counter offer or there is no contract.
Counter-Offer can be explained in Normille v Miller Case.

Normille v Miller (Andrew ,2011)

The fact is defendant listed real estate for sale with a local realtor. On the same
day, a real estate broker, Richard Byer, showed the property to the plaintiffs who were
prospective purchasers. Byer helped plaintiffs prepare a written offer to purchase the
property. The offer was countered with various terms of the original offer amended.
The plaintiff did not immediately accept or reject the offer and did not like all of the
terms described in the counteroffer. Byer testified that Normile did not have $500 for
earnest money deposit, which was one of the requirements of the defendants
counteroffer, and thought that the plaintiff had rejected the counteroffer. The
following day, plaintiff Segal signed an offer to purchase with terms very similar to
those contained in defendants counteroffer to plaintiff Normile and Kurniawan. This
offer was accepted by defendant (through the same agent), without any changes. Later
that same day, the defendant revoked her counteroffer to plaintiff as the agent
commented, You snooze, you lose; the property has been sold. Prior to the end of
that same day, plaintiffs Normile and Kurniawan initialed the offer to purchase form
containing defendants counteroffer and delivered the form to the defendants realtor,
along with the earnest money deposit of $500.

The issue is, if a seller rejects a prospective purchasers offer to purchase but
makes a counteroffer that is not accepted by the prospective purchaser, does the
prospective purchaser have the power to accept after he receives notice that the
counteroffer has been revoked?

The reason of the courts decision is there was no meeting of the minds
between plaintiff-appellants and defendant since the parties failed to assent to the
same thing in the same sense. The defendants counteroffer did not manifest any
intent to accept the terms of the original offer, unless and until the original offeror
accepted the terms of the defendants counteroffer. A qualified acceptance
constitutes a counter-offer and has the same effect as a rejection.

As a conclusion, there is no, the prospective purchaser does not have the
power to accept a counteroffer after he receives notice that the counteroffer has been
revoked.

Step 3
 In this situation Janice offer to sell her auto to Samantha for RM 340000. Be
that as it may on the statement she said that "Offer remains open for a week from
today" which telling Samantha she can think and provide for her answer inside this
one week. In any case on the second July Samantha posted a letter saying that
Rm34000 is too much and offer for decrease offer to RM 30000 which counter the
first offer that Janice had set. One of the requirements on legitimate acceptance is that
acceptance must be absolute and inadequate. On the way that Samantha counters offer
Janice offer which means that there is no absolute and inadequate acceptance
originating from Samantha and the first offer does not exist any longer. On the same
day Samantha posted again an alternate answer to Janice saying that she concede to
the first value which is RM 34000 which mean she make an alternate offer to Janice.
At the point when Samantha counter offer Janice in place for the counter offer to be
compelling the two parties need to concede to it and Janice has a right to end the
agreement on the off chance that she disagrees on the counter offer and discover an
alternate purchaser which is Thomas.

Step 4

As a conclusion, Since Samantha counter offer Janice's unique offer that

makes Janice qualifies for reject or concur with the offer that Samantha offer back.
Despite the fact that Samantha answered again by consenting to the first offer still its
dependent upon Janice whether to acknowledge or reject the offer. As I would like to
think, Samantha can't implement the agreement against Janice.

References
Business law, (2012). Essential Elements of A Valid Acceptance Available
at: http://shivamlawworld.blogspot.com/2012/03/essential-elements-of-
valid-acceptance.html [Accessed 3rd November 2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Adam & Ords v Lindsell & Anor Available at:
http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/adam-ords-v-lindsell-anor/ [Accessed 3rd November
2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Brinkibon Ltd. V Stahad Stahl und

Stahlwarenhandelgesellchaft mbH Available at:
http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Brinkibon_Ltd._v_Stahag_Stahl_und_Stahlwarenha
ndelsgesellschaft_mbH [Accessed 3rd November 2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Byrne v Van Tienhoven Available at:

http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Byrne_v_Van_Tienhoven [Accessed 3rd November
2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Felthouse v Bindley Available at:

http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Felthouse_v_Bindley [Accessed 3rd November
2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Holwell Securities Ltd. V Hughes Available at:

http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Holwell_Securities_Ltd._v_Hughes [Accessed 3rd
November 2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company

(Limited) v Gran Available at:
http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Household_Fire_and_Carriage_Accident_Insurance_
Company_(Limited)_v_Gran [Accessed 3rd November 2014]

Casebrief.me, (n.d.). Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Available at:

http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/pharmaceutical-society-of-gb-v-boots-cash/
[Accessed 3rd November 2014]

Law School Case Briefs |Legal Outlines |Study Materials, (2012). Gibson v Manchester
City Council case brief Available at: http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/12/gibson-v-manchester-city-
council-case.html [Accessed 3rd November 2014]

Mib law, (n.d.). Normile v. Miller, 326 S.E.2d 11 (1985) Available at:
http://www.miblaw.com/lawschool/normile-v-miller/ [Accessed 3rd November
2014]
Micgill1, (n.d.). Entores V. Miles Far East Corporation Available at:
http://mcgill1l.wikispaces.com/Entores+v.+Miles+Far+East+Corporation
[Accessed 3rd November 2014]