Assessment 1

Overall issue: Discuss whether a valid contract has been made between Nikhil and Vicky
using the rules of offer and acceptance.

How does the law support and regulate these everyday activities? First, it must define its
subject matter. Contracts are what contract law applies to, yet no formal definition of it exists
at common law. The definitions offered in texts generally speak in terms of a promise (or
agreement) which is enforced (recognised by the law).' Three elements can be isolated:
Promise: the focus here is one-sided. It emphasises the voluntariness and seriousness of the
undertaking given by each party and is consistent with most justifications for enforcing
contracts (see 1.4). (ii) Agreement: the focus here is bilateral or multi-lateral. It emphasises
the consensus between the contract parties as to their future rights and liabilities. It is also
consistent with most justifications for contractual enforcement and explains the requirements
of offer and matching acceptance for contract formation (Chen-Wishart, 2007)
Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition.
Contract law concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements. Or A contract is a
legally-binding agreement which recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties
to the agreement. (Fergus, 2006)

Contract formation
'I say there is a contract and you say there isn't'
2 The test of intention: objectivity and mistake of terms 'What did the parties intend?' 2 1 The
objective test of intentions 2 2 Mistakes as io terms)
3 Agreement 'Do the parties meet the requirements of agreement?'
3 1 The mirror image approach offer and acceptance
3 2 Offer
3 3 Acceptance
3 4 Termination of the offer
3 5 Assessment of the mirror image approach
3 6 Certainty
3 7 Intention to create legal relations
3 8 Non-contractual solutions
4 Enforceability: consideration, formalities, promissory estoppel 'Is the agreement
enforceable?'
4.1 Consideration 'I paid for your performance'

1
4.2 Formalities 'You went through a ceremony'
4.3 Promissory estoppel 'Your undertaking unconscionably induced my reliance' (Chen-
Wishart, 2007)
[….]

The relationship created between potential seller Nickhil and potential buyer Vicky
seems pretty clear and simple, but in fact, from a legal point of view, it is a much more
complex situation with specific problems for each contact stage. Thus, in the first part, the
question arises whether there is a valid offer from Nickhil when he attached to the van's rear
window that it is for sale, including general van information and van's having a small core, as
well an advertising on the price of £ 5,000, as well as his personal contact number.

The first step would be to argue if we can place Nikhil's announcement as a valid
offer. As a reference in support of the Nickhil case on the classification of advertising as a
negotiation mandate or offer, we can follow the Partrige / Crittenden case. This case includes
the main issue of the advertiser's advertising rating for the sale of poultry, including the price
for a bird, according to the act of selling these birds would be illegal. Thus, the Court has
held that the notice does not contain any specific clauses or conditions of sale and has been
classified as a negotiated invitation rather than a valid offer. Referencing this to our case,
even if the ad contains the estimated vouchers price, representing only a negotiation
invitation and receiving offers from other participants. Although, as per the Carlill / Carbolic
Smoke case, the announcement represents an unilateral offer. Carbolic Smoke Ball published
advertisements claiming that it was offering 100 pounds (in 1891), to anyone who got the flu
(influenzia) despite using properly their product. When Mrs. Carlill bought and used the
smoke ball and still caught the flu (influenzia), they refused to pay the claim of 100 pounds,
so she brought a claim to court. Thus, in this case, the judgment is that it clearly represented a
bid for all those who bought their products, representing a promise to return the money to the
other party if the smoke ball has not met expectations. As per above arguments, Nickhil's
announcement cannot be classified as an offer because it does not contain specific conditions,
it does not stipulate the seriousness of what an offer should contain. It is just an invitation to
reach an agreement by granting others the right to propose or to make an offer regarding the
sale of the van.

[…]
2
 The next step in the event sequence was Vicky's phone call to Nikhil, which is the
question about the lowest price he can offer for van. As a result of this conversation, the
specific issue of conversation classification as a valid offer from Nikhil, which provided
information on the lowest van price, would be £ 4000. At this time, Nikhil declared the
lowest price for one time in response to Vicky's request for information, so he can not be
used as proof of intent to create a legal link that would be followed by a contract . As an
argument for this specific issue and the decision we made in relation to it, we will look at the
case of Harvey v Facey of 1893, which, as in our case, a telegram response to the lowest
price information for the £ 900 Bumper Hall Pen was interpreted mistaken by potential buyer
Harvey as the valid offer, on the basis of which by acceptance there would have been a valid
purchase contract for sale. Applying our case as the Privy Council held that there was no
contract between the parties, so did Nikhil and Vicky. Facey did not respond directly to the
first question as to whether he would sell, and the lowest price declared was just to respond to
a request for information, not a bid. There was no evidence that the intention that Facey's
telegram was an offer, such as telephone conversation and Nikhil's reported lowest van price.

On March 5, Vicky sent a letter to Nikhil that reflected the fact that she would accept
the offer to buy the £ 4,000. This letter can not be recognized as a legal acceptance of the
offer, first of all that there was in fact no valid offer, so that Vicky sent a letter accepting a
non-existent offer.

[….]

Refferences

Mindy, Chen-Wishart (2007). Contract Law. OUP Oxford , available at

https://books.google.com.my/books?
id=Tcjwe6v_xnsC&pg=PA1&dq=floodgates+fo+r+intention+to+create+legal+relatio+n&hl=
ro&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed on 3th March 2019]

Ryan, Fergus (2006). Round Hall nutshells Contract Law. Thomson Round Hall. p. 1. ISBN
9781858001715