This case involves a series of communications between Aria and Bu regarding the potential sale of Aria's car. In the initial discussion, Aria's statement about thinking of selling the car is analyzed and determined to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Bu's response is deemed an offer to purchase the car for £2,000. Aria's subsequent email includes a counteroffer to sell for £2,500, terminating Bu's initial offer. When Bu immediately deletes the email after reading only the first sentence, no acceptance has occurred as it must be clearly communicated. However, if Bu had read the full email and remained silent, accepting the condition outlined, a contract may have been formed.
This case involves a series of communications between Aria and Bu regarding the potential sale of Aria's car. In the initial discussion, Aria's statement about thinking of selling the car is analyzed and determined to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Bu's response is deemed an offer to purchase the car for £2,000. Aria's subsequent email includes a counteroffer to sell for £2,500, terminating Bu's initial offer. When Bu immediately deletes the email after reading only the first sentence, no acceptance has occurred as it must be clearly communicated. However, if Bu had read the full email and remained silent, accepting the condition outlined, a contract may have been formed.
This case involves a series of communications between Aria and Bu regarding the potential sale of Aria's car. In the initial discussion, Aria's statement about thinking of selling the car is analyzed and determined to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Bu's response is deemed an offer to purchase the car for £2,000. Aria's subsequent email includes a counteroffer to sell for £2,500, terminating Bu's initial offer. When Bu immediately deletes the email after reading only the first sentence, no acceptance has occurred as it must be clearly communicated. However, if Bu had read the full email and remained silent, accepting the condition outlined, a contract may have been formed.
This case involves a series of communications between Aria and Bu regarding the potential sale of Aria's car. In the initial discussion, Aria's statement about thinking of selling the car is analyzed and determined to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Bu's response is deemed an offer to purchase the car for £2,000. Aria's subsequent email includes a counteroffer to sell for £2,500, terminating Bu's initial offer. When Bu immediately deletes the email after reading only the first sentence, no acceptance has occurred as it must be clearly communicated. However, if Bu had read the full email and remained silent, accepting the condition outlined, a contract may have been formed.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Q.
On Tuesday Aria tells Bu, a workmate that she is: ‘thinking of selling her car which is worth about £2,000’. On Wednesday morning Bu emails Aria: ‘Will take the car for £2,000, will pay U when I see U’. Aria replies by email on Wednesday evening: ‘Don’t be silly, I was not actually offering to sell the car but, having thought about it, you can have it for £2,500. I know you will want it so don’t bother writing back unless you are not interested.’ Bu is so annoyed when he reads the first sentence of Aria’s email that he immediately deletes it. On Saturday Aria drives round to Bu’s house to deliver the car and demands payment. Discuss.
Would your answer differ if, after reading all of the email Aria sent on Wednesday evening, Bu decided he wanted to buy the car for £2,500 and Aria now refuses to deliver it?
A legally enforceable agreement known as a Contract establishes, clarifies, and outlines the rights and obligations of the parties involved. This particular case addresses a variety of subjects, including an invitation to treat and an offer and acceptance and we have to consult some of the cases also. Using the IRAC rule, the first paragraph clarifies the initial statement that Aria spoke to Bu and the subsequent paragraph lists the additional comments made between the aria and bu.
By using the IRAC rule, the Issue of A's statement is an offer or an invitation to treat arises in the first statement made between A and B. An Offer is a declaration of the desire to enter into a legally binding contract on certain terms and serves as the basis for any agreement. An offer can be revoked, terminated, or negotiated. The Rule that clarifies the offer is Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) 3 ALL ER 824. An Invitation to treat indicates that one party is open to receiving an invitation. As there is no immediate desire to be legally committed, it might alternatively be seen as an invitation to negotiate rather than an offer. The case that clarifies the invitation to treat is Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) 1 All ER 972. We can determine that the first statement in the aria does contain an offer or an invitation to treat by conducting analysis and comparing the Storer and Gibson examples. It is obvious from the Storer case that the terms are certain and the court of appeals determined that a legally enforceable contract existed. The only thing Storer needed to do to commit himself was to sign the document and mail it back after the council sent him an offer. In the Gibson case the terms are uncertain and the council stated that “may be prepared to sell” so it’s not an offer. Lord Diplock stated that “The words 'may be prepared to sell' are fatal...so is the invitation, not, be it noted, to accept the offer, but 'to make formal application to buy on the enclosed application form. It is...a letter setting out the financial terms on which it may be the council would be prepared to consider a sale and purchase in due course.” The fact that there was no price agreement in the Gibson case as opposed to Storer's case is a significant difference between them. Important terminology in the Gibson case still needed to be established. The first statement's Conclusion is that by contrasting, it is obvious that the aria made an invitation to treat when he said, "Thought of selling a car," and since the price he mentions is the car's market value rather than an offer.
The second statement between A and B raises the Issue of whether Bu is accepting or offering. The offer is considered to have been accepted when the recipient of it expresses his consent. As a result, when accepted, the proposition becomes a promise. According to the definition, Acceptance occurs when the offeree accepts the proposition without conditions from the giver. An offer like this becomes a promise if it is accepted. The analysis say that as we know that in legal terms the invitation to treat is not an offer so it is not accepted. If the terms are clear in the first statement so it should be an acceptance to an offer. The conclusion is that it is obvious that Bu made an offer to Aria of 2000 pounds of her car because the invitation to treat is not considered to be an offer.
Another statement by Aria to Bu raises the Issue: Is this a counteroffer from aria? A counter offer is an offer made in response to an earlier offer made by the opposite party during discussions for a binding agreement. Making a counter offer automatically rejects the initial proposal; if the counter offer is accepted in accordance with its conditions, a contract is formed otherwise not. This rule is applied in Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. The analysis made that the counter offer is made and it terminates the previous offer as it happened in Hyde v wrench case so some of the words of the judgment made by the LORD LANGDALE MR is stated as “I think there exists no valid binding contract between the parties for the purchase of the property. I think that it was not afterwords competent for him to revive the proposal of the defendant, by tendering an acceptance of it; and that, there exists no obligation of any sort between the parties.”
After reading the first clause of the aria statement, he is now so irritated that he deletes the email, raising the Issue of whether or not the acceptance is legitimate. Or has Bu actually read it? The Rule or case applied in this situation is Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J35. The outcome of this case is that it was decided that the complainant and his nephew had no agreement over the horse. The offer had not been accepted, silence did not constitute acceptance, and another person cannot impose an obligation. Any acceptance of an offer must be made known in a concise manner. There was no contract of sale, notwithstanding the nephew's intentions to sell the horse to the complainant and his expressed desire. Therefore, the nephew's silence on the complainant's offer did not constitute an acceptance of it. After reading the Felthouse case, it is concluded that aria and Bu did not enter into a contract since acceptance must be clearly conveyed and cannot be imposed owing to one party's silence. Silence does not constitute acceptance.
I don't think my response would be the same if Bu sees the entire email that Aria sent on Wednesday and stays silent, because of the condition she imposed in the mail to remain silent for the acceptance. A contract has been made between the two parties, and if Aria refuses to provide it, she is in breach of that contract.
