CONTRACT ASSIGNMENT

ADVICE TO KWASI DOMPO

This problem is specifically under offer and acceptance. The legal issues and
the resolutions are as follows;

1. Whether the display of scooters constituted an offer or invitation to treat

The display of goods in a shop window does not constitute an offer because in contract law it is a
mere invitation to treat. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Chemists Ltd. In
this case, the defendants had just introduced a self service mode of sale whereby the customer
picks the items to pay at the till. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain sued the defendant
on the basis of offering poison for sale without the authorization of a pharmacist. The court held
that the display of goods is only an invitation to treat and not an offer. The offer only occurs when
the customer proposes to buy it by which the shop keeper may accept before a valid contract may
have ensued. Kwasi dompo’s visit to the shop and seeing the display of scooters was only an
invitiation to treat and not an offer. The offer lied with Kwasi to make, in respect to the purchase
of the scooter.

2. Whether his selection of the scooter and the enquiry constituted an offer?

In the case of NTHC Ltd v.Antwi an offer was defined as an indication in words or by conduct by an
offeror that he or she is prepared to be bound by a contract in the terms expressed in the offer, if the
offeree communicates to the offeror his or her acceptance of those terms. The elements that constitute
an offer are very important to determining if indeed there was an offer. The elements are willingness
by the parties to contract, affirmed terms, sense of finality and in this issue, Kwasi Dompo showed no
willingness to contract, there was no stated terms to which they would have been bound and his
words and conduct did not indicate nor imply any sense of finality. Therefore, Kwasi Dompo’s
selection and enquiry about the scooter was not an offer.

3. Whether the dealer’s note constituted an offer

In this instance, according to NTHC Ltd v. Antwi an offer was defined as an indication in words
by conduct by an offeror that he or she is prepared to be bound by a contract in the terms
expressed in the offer, if the offeree communicates to the offeror his or her acceptance of those
terms. In the same vein, the key elements are essential to establish whether the note was an offer.
The dealer exhibited willingness to contract by going to Kwasi Dompo’s house with the scooter.
The dealer in his note stated the terms of the contract which included stipulated discount on price
and the conditions of acceptance in the note highlighted on a sense of finality. Therefore it can be
deemed that the dealer’s note constituted an offer.

4. Whether the dealer can enforce a contract against Kwasi Dompo if he keeps silent after 3
days.
The offeror cannot impose or enforce a contract on an offeree by prescribing silence as a mode of
acceptance. This principle is established in Felthouse v. Bindley, an uncle (Felthouse) and his
nephew entered into negotiations about the sale of a horse. There was a misunderstanding about
the price and he proposed they split the difference. He sent to his nephew a message that if he
 heard nothing from him he would consider the horse his. The nephew decided to accept the offer
but did not communicate it to him. The court held that there was no contract because the offeree
had not communicated his acceptance to the offeror therefore he was not bound by the offeror’s
prescription of silence as a mode of acceptance. The dealer has no grounds to enforce a contract
on Kwasi Dompo. Though Kwasi Dompo was interested in accepting the offer there was no
communication of that intent to the offeror therefore the offeror cannot enforce a contract.

5. Whether Kwasi Dompo can enforce a contract against the dealer of his silence after 3 days.
The offeror cannot impose contractual liability on the offeree when he has prescribed silence as a
mode of acceptance to the offeree but the offeree can enforce contractual liability on the offeror
by his intention to accept the offer (by being silent). Felthouse v. Bindley, on the flipside if the
offeree intends to accept the offer the offeror would be hard pressed to find any justification for
disputing his liability in a resulting contract since he prescribed silence as a mode of acceptance.
Kwasi Dompo can enforce a contract against the dealer by his silence as a mode of acceptance.
He is under no obligation whatsoever to state his non-acceptance or acceptance. He only needed
to clearly manifest his intention by being silent.

6. Whether the writing of the letter constituted an acceptance

The principle is that acceptance has no effect unless and until it is communicated to the offeror or
otherwise brought to his notice. In Fofie v. Zanyo, the defendants offered in a letter to sell a
building to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he accepted the offer and made payments in
installments towards the purchase price. However, the defendant denied that the plaintiff accepted
the offer and that the payment was to an earlier ten-year tenancy that the administrators had
granted the plaintiff. The court held that before it could be said that there had been an acceptance
of an offer by an offeree there had to be positive evidence in words, writing or conduct and it had
to be communicated to the offeror. In relation to the facts, Kwasi Dompo having just written the
letter was not enough to constitute an acceptance, until the letter is communicated to the offeror
,the offeree’s writing of the letter was a mere mental acceptance.

7. Whether taking his wife for a ride constitute an acceptance

According to the court holding in Fofie v. Zanyo, an acceptance must constitute two key
elements; positive evidence in words, writing or by conduct and must be communicated to the
offeror. Kwasi Dompo taking his wife for a ride does not communicate acceptance to the offeror
and by his conduct it was not mentioned in the facts that the ride was on the scooter, this also
defeats any acceptance.

8. Whether the posting of the empty envelope constituted an acceptance

An acceptance by post becomes legally effective and complete when the letter of acceptance is
addressed and posted, this is referred to as the postal rule in Adams v. Lindsell. In this case, the
defendants offered to sell wool on certain terms , the defendant required an answer in the course
of post. The defendants misdirected their letter and so it did not reach the plaintiff until 5th
September, on the same day the plaintiff posted a letter of acceptance, the letter got to the
defendants on the 9th September which should have arrived on the 7th, on the 8th the defendants
sold the wool to third parties. Kwasi Dompo’s posting the empty envelope constituted an
 inappropriate acceptance sine the message conveyed to the dealer who is the offeror will be
nothing.

9. Whether the dealer can revoke the offer

A promise made to keep an offer open for a specified time should be invalid as a contract by
reason only of the absence of any consideration therefore Section 8(1) of the Ghana Contracts
Acts (Act 25). Thus under Ghanaian law, a promise to keep an offer open for a period of time is
binding on the promisor even in the absence of consideration.
Thus the dealer offer to Kwesi Dompo cannot be revoked per Section 8(1) of the Ghana Contracts
Act1960 because the dealer made a promise and even stipulated the duration he would have
considered if accepted, even after that the duration per the Section 8(1) of Ghana Contracts Act
(196) in the absence of consideration, it is binding on the dealer.

10. Whether there was a concluding or binding contract between Kwasi Dompo and the dealer.
There was a binding or concluding contract. The reason being that since the offeror who is the car
dealer expressly stated silence would be considered as an acceptance, thereby waiving the
requirement of communication of acceptance, the offeree’s silence (Kwasi Dompo) in response to
the terms of the offer could be binding on the offeror. In the case, since the dealer prescribed
silence as a mode of acceptance , he cannot be heard to complain that the acceptance was not
communicated to him.