BRIEF FACTS

Akello and Odongo are friends since from University.

Odongo owns a whole sale business and is well aware the business is at the verge
of collapsing due to heavy debt. Recently Odongo approached Akello and
proposed to sell to her the business at Ugx. Shs. 50,000,000 and he tells Akello that
the business is progressing well and would not want her to miss an opportunity to
be a billionaire.

Akello agreed and the two got an agreement drafted by their mutual friend and
lawyer Abigana. Basing on what she was told about the financial progress of the
business Akello signed the agreement and paid half of the price and promised to
pay the balance in two weeks.

Akello learnt that the business was in debt worth Ugx shs.100, 000,000.Odongo is
demanding full payment of the balance and is threatening to sue her is she refuses.

Ojara, Akello’s husband has heard of the ordeal and is very furious .He feels his
wife has been cheated and he wants to sue Odongo to recover his wife’s money.

Akello’s brother Akol sells electronic gadgets and he recently put up a sign post at
his shop stating “Hp laptop on sale at 650,000 /= only”. He received a message
from Amule stating “if I do not hear from you by 5:00pm today, I will consider the
Hp laptop mine at shs. 600,000/=”

Akol ignored the message and sold the laptop a week later to Kato. Amule has
heard and threatens to sue Akol.

Akol approached his regular customer Mbabazi requesting her to purchase his
iPhone 15 at Ushs. 300, 000 because he needed the money urgently to take Belle
on a valentine’s get away.
Mbabazi accepted and paid cash and now Akol has approached Mbabazi saying the
money she paid was not worth the value of an iPhone and he wants to sue her.

ISSUES

1. Whether Odongo is entitle to full payment of the balance

2. Whether Ojara should sue Odongo
3. Whether Akol’s sign post amounted to an offer
4. Whether Akol’s silence amounted to acceptance
5. Whether UShs.300,000 was sufficient consideration to Akol

LAW APPLICABLE

- The constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995 as amended)

- Case law
- The contract act 2010
- Common law and Equity

PARTIES

1. Akello
2. Odongo
3. Abigaba
4. Ojara
5. Akol
6. Amule
7. Kato
8. Mbabazi
9. Belle

RESOLVING ISSUES

1. Whether Odongo is entitle to full payment of the balance

According to section 13(d) of the contract act 2010, consent of parties to a contract
is taken to be free where it is not caused by misrepresentation.

Fraudulent misrepresentation in Section 15 of the contract act 2010, consent is

induced by fraud where a suggestion to a fact which is not true, made by a person
who does not believe it to be true

This is illustrated in the case of Edgington v Fitzamaurice where The directors of

a company borrowed money, representing that they would use the loan for the
improvement of the company’s buildings In fact, they had intended from the start
to use the loan to pay off serious debts that were owed by the company They had
misrepresented what their actual intentions were The court regarded this as a false
statement of material fact

Scenario Facts

 Odongo’s business is at the verge of collapsing due to heavy debt

 Odongo in tells Akello his business is progressing well
 Akello signs the agreement and pays half of the amount basing on Odongo’s
information

From the above facts, Odongo's statement was false and amounted to fraudulent
misrepresentation. Akello based on it to enter into the contract hence rendering the
agreement invalid.

Advice

Therefore as discussed above Odongo cannot sue Akello for full payment of the
balance because there is no valid contract between them. While Akello can sue for
a rescission.

Rescission is when two parties give back and take back whatever was the subject
matter of the contract.

2. Whether Ojara should sue Odongo

In the case of Tweddle V Atkinson. The Court held that since Tweddle's son was
not a party to the contract made by his father and his bride’s father, he did not give
consideration to buy Guy's promise. Therefore Tweddle's son could not sue.

Scenario facts

 Ojara upon hearing what had happened to his wife Akello wanted to sue
Odongo

From the facts above Ojara was not a party to the contract between Akello and
Odongo.

Advice

Ojara cannot sue Odongo

3. Whether Akol’s sign post amounted to an offer

Section 2 of the contract act 2010 defines an offer to mean the willingness to do or
abstain from doing anything signified by a person to another.

In the case of Partridge v Crittenden, the appellant had placed an advertisement

indicating that he had certain wild birds for sale. He was convicted for selling life
birds. The trial court was satisfied that the advert was an offer. The accused
appealed, it was argued that the advert was not an offer but a mere invitation to
treat.

Scenario facts

 Akol put up a sign post at his shop which stated “Hp laptop on sale at
650,000 /= only”.

From the fact above Akol’s sign post was an advertisement which does not amount
to an offer but a mere invitation to treat

There for since there was no offer Amule cannot succeed in suing Akol
 4. Whether Akol’s silence amounted to acceptance

According to Sec 3(2) of the contracts act, acceptance must be communicated to

and received by the offeror.

In a case of Felt house v Bindley, Felt house wrote to his nephew John on
2 February offering to buy his horse for £30 and adding that "if I hear no
more about him, I consider the horse mine at that price". The nephew made
no reply and sold the horse on 25th February. The plaintiff sued. Court held
that the action must fail as there had been no acceptance of the plaintiff's
offer. Court therefore concluded that silence does not amount to acceptance

Scenario facts

 Akol received a message from Amule stating “if I do not hear from
you by 5:00pm today, I will consider the Hp laptop mine at Shs.
600,000/=”

 Akol ignored the message and sold the laptop a week later to Kato

From the above facts, Akol did not communicate his acceptance to Amule’s offer
therefore there was no contract between them since silence does not amount to
acceptance as ruled in the case above.

Advice

Amule should not sue because she will not succeed

5. Whether UShs.300,000 was sufficient consideration to Akol

According to Section 2 of contract act 2010, consideration means a right, interest,

profit, or benefit accruing to one party or forbearance, detriment, loss or
responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party.

General rule consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

In a case of Thomas v Thomas. A testator before his death expressed the desire
that his wife should continue to live in his house for the rest of her life. After he
died, his executor wrote to his wife stating that she could have use of the house on
payment of £1 per year which she agreed to. Court held that payment of £1 per
year was sufficient consideration.

Scenario facts

 Akol approached Mbabazi requesting her to purchase his iPhone 15 at Ushs.

300, 000
 Akol needed the money urgently to take Belle on a valentine’s get away.
 Mbabazi agreed and bought the phone

From the above facts, Akol and Mbabazi had an agreement to purchase the iPhone
15 from Akol at Ushs. 300,000 which was sufficient consideration at the time
because Akol needed the money.

Since consideration need not be adequate but sufficient, Akol cannot succeed in a
civil suit against Mbabazi for the iPhone 15.