Natashah K Mapingere

23900329

LS110 Law of contract

Term C 2023
Assignment 2
28 November 2023

Introduction

In the event that James might sue Peter for a breach of contract for failing to sell him
the house, Peter might need to seek advice in terms of his rights and obligations and
most importantly if a valid contract was ever made between him and James.
Therefore after close scrutiny of the case, it is only fair to say that Peter is legally
right and cannot be sued for selling the house to a third party who is his neighbour
however some events leave room one think think he is guilty. The facts in question
on this case focus on the principles of, advertisement, offer, revocation and
acceptance which will be discussed in the essay below

Legally right/Not Guilty:

Advertisement
It is imperative to note that not all advertisements are offers which make them
Unilateral contracts but they can in some cases be bilateral contracts too. In the
above case , the advertisement made by Peter was bilateral in nature as it required
for both parties to be exchanging something (Charman, 2007). Secondly it clearly
cannot be treated as an offer but an invitation to treat as the nature of the
advertisement gave room for negotiations in terms of the price and the house itself
and it was for the public therefore anyone could come and make an offer with Peter
(( Elliott & Quinn, 2007).Hence, Peter cannot be sued on the grounds of the
advertisement as it was not an offer let alone binding.

Counter- offer and Time Stipulation

A counter-offer was made by Peter when he made an offer on the house for K368
000 on a Monday after James had rejected his previous offer. The counter-offer was
open until Friday noon. However, revocation or cancellation of that offer occurred
when Peter sold the house to his neighbour on Wednesday before James could
accept the counter-offer.

In light of the above information,James could argue that Peter was bound by the time
limit he stipulated in the counter-offer letter and therefore had no right to sell the
house until that time had elapsed. However ,the rule to the revocation of an offer is
that even though time to consider an offer has not elapsed, an offeror can revoke
their offer if as long as it has not been accepted by the offeree (Elliott,& Quinn,
2007). This principle was further reiterated in the household case of Routledge v
Grant 1828 where the defendant sold a house to a third party despite having made
an offer to the plaintiff giving him time to think about it. It was held that though there
was a time stipulation, The defended could still withdraw the offer as long as the
offeree had not accepted it (Elliott,& Quinn, 2007). Therefore, Peter cannot be sued
on the grounds of violating the time stipulation condition he made on the counter
offer.

Revocation Provisions
Furthermore, Peter cannot be sued for a breach of contract on the grounds of not
communicating his revocation to James because it was communicated to him by a
third party. According to Stone, (2009) Revocation of an offer is valid if
communicated by the offeror to the offeree but there is an exception that a reliable
source can also communicate the revocation of an offer to the offeree. This principle
was established in the case of Dickson v Dodds ( 1876) where it was held that a
neighbour had told the plaintiff about the sale of the house therefore he clearly knew
the house had been sold therefore the offer was cancelled.

In addition to the above, James could claim that a valid contract was made when he
sent an acceptance letter to Peter's counter-offer before the time had elapsed
hence, Peter selling the house was a breach of contract. That contract unfortunately
is invalid and is not enforceable as James accepted the offer knowing very well it
been revoked as he was told by this brother that the house had been sold to his
neighbour. As highlighted above in the case of Dickson v Dodds (1876), it was held
that when the plaintiff accepted the offer he already knew the house was no longer in
sale therefore no contract was made. Thus, Peter cannot be sued on the grounds of
a breach of contract because acceptance happened to an offer that no longer
existed.

Guilty:
question on what qualifies one to be a reliable source
It would be injustice to not inform Peter that the case can a take a different turn if the
question of what qualifies a reliable source is brought up. As argued by Elliott,&
Quinn (2007) Lord Denning , asserts that it is difficult to determine who is reliable
source and who is not. This test could lead to Peter being guilty of breach of contract
if it is established that James's brother is not a reliable source and was speaking
solely on grapevine (Elliott,& Quinn, 2007).

Conclusion
One cannot definitively say that Peter is legally wrong and can be sued without a
thorough understanding of the specific legal circumstances and the applicable laws
and regulations as explicitly shown by the above assessment. Though a test for what
areliable source might be conducted which does create some uncertainty in terms of
him being legally in his actions. Peter will have to seek legal advice to know where
he stands.

Reference list
M. Charman. (2007) . Contract Law (4th ed). London: Wilan Publishing.

R. Stone. (2009). The Modern Law of Contract (8th ed). London: Routledge
Publishing.
Elliot, &, Quinn.(2007). Contract Law (7th ed). Pearson Longman:London.