UNIVERSITY

BUSINESS LAW

Student Identification no:

WORD COUNT: 0

ANSWER:

a) ISSUE: Peter is in pursuit of suing Brett for not thanking and being ungrateful, therefore will
lodge a claim and Brett in contradiction is of the view that family relationships cannot sue
and cannot be regarded for legal relationships.
LAW:
A binding Agreement:
Any contract becomes a binding contract and becomes valid one in any agreement needs to
demonstrate and depict that an offer was made and an acceptance took place afterwards so
that it is the depiction of both the parties.
Parties are or may not communicate with each other by usage of these terms but they are
doing these two things for calling a contract binding one therefore it could be in their minds
even to form a valid contract.
Section [ CITATION 2201 \l 1033 ] of Contract Law defines:
 Offer: There is no distinguished form of offer or any specific criterion to distinguish offer it is
a sort of communication that is leading to be judged as a promise to do or not to do
something in response to the offered person’s doing/not doing of something as promise.
Acceptance: any statement by offered individual accepting the actual offer and it is necessary
for this statement to occur in reply of an offer we will consider this point in detail later.

APPLICATION: Effect of an Uncle/Nephew relation on agreement:

The case of [ CITATION Placeholder1 \l 1033 ] is referable here in which it was happened that
spouses promised among them. Hubby promised his wife to pay a specific amount to her that
he later didn’t done and as a result she sued. The case however didn’t regulate the man nor
accepted this all as an agreement or binding contract. Neither the consideration nor offer is
labelled to be valid because it was endorsed that it is not reasonable for law to cause
interference in such contractual relationships as there is no intention existed at the time of
promising each other to have legal consequences of legally bound contract. It is therefore
regarded as a mere arrangement of things between families.
Word consensus is used which means both parties consented on the terms of
agreement/contract is requirement of a contract to be valid. Consensus is however measured
in objective terms.

The case of Jones v Padavatton also suggests the same as it was the case among parents &
children and regarded as not a legal relation instead is a domestic one.

CONCLUSION:

Brett’s statement regarding we are family and therefore uncle can’t sue me is right to a
certain extent and cases suggest that it was not the intention of uncle and neither of Brett to
bound each other in a legal relation instead peter was in pursuit of gifting but charged 500 in
offer so it is depicted that the affection of relationship existed at the time of offer.

b) ISSUE:

Brett stated that there is no contract binding me because I never accepted the offer tends to
focus on two main things:

LAW:

Acceptance: any statement by offered individual accepting the actual offer and it is necessary
for this statement to occur in reply of an offer we will consider this point in detail later.

The definition suggests that the statement of Brett is right but few other facts should also be
considered.
 According to SECTION: [CITATION 220 \l 1033 ].

APPLICATION:

No he has not done this explicitly as

Brett’s statement of having no contract:

Brett stated that there is no contract binding me because I never accepted the offer tends to
focus on two main things:

[ CITATION FEL \l 2057 ] Proved that for any acceptance to be effective communication is
necessary. Any mentally taken decision of acceptance cannot be justified. Again Brett
appears to be right according to general rule.

The case of EMPIRNALL HOLDINGS V MACHON PAULL also suggested a very

imperative point saying that any offeror cannot describe and resultantly make “silence” as an
acceptance symbol and therefore cannot impose obligation of a contract and as a result Brett
can reject the offer [ CITATION www37 \l 2057 ]

Until such facts possibility states the non-binding nature and righteousness of Brett.

The “improper exercise of dominion” is labelling the act of Brett that he used car without
acceptance:

CONCLUSION:

Silence in response to the offer is not an acceptance BUT it is regarded as a clear acceptance
where the offeree is doing IMPROPER EXERCISE OF DOMINION which the Brett is doing
such act has made the contract binding for both Peter and Brett. According to the citation the
Brett is bound to purchase at the price stated in offer.

c) ISSUE:
 LAW: This is regarded as the performance of an existing duty and in social contracts such as
this the commercial viability and worth of things becomes less important than those explicitly
and domestically decided. [ CITATION Placeholder1 \l 2057 ]

Relevant section of contract law is: [ CITATION Sec \l 1033 ] and [ CITATION 2201 \l 1033
]

Silence usually cannot be regarded as an acceptance of offer and this is a very general and
clear rule. Another aspect stated that if the offeror tells the offeree that silence would be
considered this way and offeree has explicitly or impliedly know the fact this silence would
be exception to the above rule but this has not happened herein.

APPLICATION: It’s a valid consideration because it is explicitly mentioned with intention of

Peter himself.

Another exception to general ruling is stating that there is a usual relation of accepting
without notifying among two parties and is a proper relationship of time. [ CITATION Pub \l
2057 ]

Consideration is regarded as the value for promise of other party i.e. Brett, it is required to
first prove the acceptance at the courts of law and afterwards the consideration has to be
endorsed.
Peter is particular about the fact that $500 is not the commercial price of a diesel car and he is
expecting to be successful in judgement that full $2000 has to be paid by Brett. It should be
the price stated under exercising the dominion that would be paid by Brett under the
exceptional rule. Secondly the domestic nature of contract is unlikely to be labelled as a
commercial one and is the worth of a commercial consideration is unlikely to be considered
by court of law.

CONCLUSION:

As long as consideration is having some sort of value it is unlikely to be questioned by the

court.

d) ISSUE: Brett is particular about the fact that he can get out of the claim because he never
wanted a diesel car and therefore even after using it he can get out of that.

LAW: The laws that are relevant to commercial transactions cover many activities of a
business but it doesn’t govern such family and domestic relationships. [ CITATION Sec \l
1033 ]
The section also states the term of improperly exercising dominion which means the contract
can become a binding agreement if the buying party uses the commodity without acceptance ,
by law it becomes the ACCEPTANCE.

APPLICATION: Brett can do that if he had not done the IMPROPER EXERCISE OF
DOMINION which the Brett is doing such act has made the contract binding for both Peter
and Brett. According to the citation the Brett is bound to purchase at the price stated in offer.

The instance discussed above binds Brett to purchase car at stated price and is forced by law
to do so even if he is not having any intention to buy diesel car in first place. [ CITATION
Cas \l 2057 ]

It is the fact that not every contract is a binding agreement among people unless the parties
are intended to enter in a legally enforced agreement. It is not explicitly stated but it has to be
inferring from the situation of a case.

For letting peter sue it should be proven by peter that intention to be bound in legal relation
existed after the acceptance is proven to happen.
Moreover the behaviour of Brett is against the statement that he didn’t accept the offer in
explicit terms as he himself used the car and under taken the exercise of dominion concept
thus exposing him-self to be regarded as he accepted the offer and is bound to pay the stated
quoted price which is $500 by Peter’s letter.

CONCLUSION:

If he had not done so there were chances in fact it was probable to get out f the contract no
acceptance was occurred until then. His stance that he will deny to know the product was a
diesel car and the statement is likely to become irrelevant as he has used the car and didn’t
asked any sort of issue saying this was not the car he intended to have.

Conclusion to the Case:

In conclusion it is likely according to the [ CITATION Placeholder1 \l 2057 ] case and [ CITATION
www37 \l 2057 ] cases that Brett would have to pay the stated $500 and is bound by the
agreement keeping in view the above facts of case laws and the resulting expected
judgement. The expectation of Peter is also not likely to be fulfilled regarding the covering of
$2000 as compensation or consideration because of [ CITATION Cas \l 2057 ] Case facts stated
above.
References:
§ 2-207. Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation. ›. (n.d.). Cornell Law School. U.C.C. -
ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 2. FORM, FORMATION AND READJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT.

2-206. Offer and Acceptance in Formation of Contract. (n.d.).

Australian Contract Law. (n.d.). Agreement. Retrieved from Australian Contract Law:
https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html

Balfour v Balfour, [1919] 2 KB 571 (LawLims ).

Big Apple Limousine Service to sell Big Apple fifty Cadillac sedans.

By Billy Sexton, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk, using material from Sweet & Maxwell's Nutshells Contract
Law. (n.d.). Contract Law – Offer & Acceptance. Retrieved from All About Law:
https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/contract-law-offer-acceptance

Case;Babe’s Baseball Memorabilia. (n.d.). Silence As Acceptance. NationalParalegal.edu.

FELTOUSE V BINDLY.

Law Hand Book 2017. (n.d.). Elements of a contract. Retrieved from The Law Handbook – Victoria’s
most trusted practical guide to the law since 1977:
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/07_01_02_elements_of_a_contract/

Sangha, D. R. (n.d.). Intention to Create Legal Relations / Parties To a Contract. Networked

Knowledge - Law Lectures.

Section 1309.305. (n.d.). Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment
property - UCC 9-305.

WEBSITE. (n.d.). Contractual agreement - offer and acceptance. Retrieved from E-Law Resources:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance.php/

www.australiancontractlaw.com. ((1862) 142 ER 1037). Felthouse v Bindley. website.