Essay
Essay contract law
- Module
- Contract law
- Institution
- University Of Greenwich
this essay discusses a contract, offer and acceptance, and is applied to a false scenario regarding an offeror and three potential offerees.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
This essay will discuss a contract, an offer, acceptance, and the application upon Aleena’ssituation. To begin with, a contract is an agreement including legal obligation expected to be
met which can be made between two parties or more (a bilateral contract) or aimed at all (a
unilateral contract), it is available in various forms which must be consented to. The parties
will be known as the offeror and offeree. As Poole says 1“contracts are arranged exchanges
which follow the rules of contract law and are legally enforceable.”.
In order for a contract to be identified, there had to be an offer first which has its own criteria
to be considered one. Firstly, an offer must be made on definite terms as if too vague, will not
be recognised by courts. The case of Loftus v Roberts 19022 held the offering of a salary to be
“west end rate” was uncertain and vague. Yet, some cases imply contracts are made despite
vagueness, in Hillas & Co. Ltd 19323, both parties in the same industry should have known
what “fair specification’ meant. The offer is required to be communicated, in Taylor v Laird
18654, the owner was unaware of the crew member’s new job offer. The basis of an offer’s
existence is based upon the offeror’s intentions, understood by a reasonable person which is
measured either subjectively or objectively (utilised by English courts): is a statement an
offer or does it simply show a willingness to negotiate, the court must differentiate between
an offer and an invitation to treat. Poole explains5 “courts examine external evidence to
objectively indicate the parties’ intention and since they’re determined objectively, it may not
match with the actual intention.”. Moran v Salford University 19936 Although it appeared the
University’s intent was to offer, an error rather than an offer got him the job.
An agreement cannot be valid without acceptance of an offer as it requires for both parties to
be on the same page. Poole proceeds to state7 “both offer, and acceptance must be efficiently
communicated (received).” and “Acceptance provides approval to the terms of the offer and
should be made in response to the offer.”. Acceptance carries two requirements: it
corresponds with the offer and is communicated to the offeror. The acceptance must
correspond to the offer made, be a mirror-image of the offer, meet the terms and be
unconditional.
An invitation to treat is when one party invites the idea of offers being made which may
happen prior to negotiations. Poole goes on to say it is8 “a statement by one party willing to
permit offers.”, and these statements are to peak interest. Partridge v Crittenden9 held the
seller’s ad was not an offer and constituted to an invitation to treat. One way this is
distinguished is by the objective analysis of contractual intent hence the importance of
assessing the language used: Gibson v Manchester City Council 197910 held there was no
contract as the council had not communicated acceptance. The second way it is distinguished
is by presumptions. If one responds to an advert and are willing to pay the price, the
advertiser is not compelled to sell to them - this presumption is rebuttable meaning the courts
can presume something is true unless proven false. The exception of this is if the
1
J Poole and others, Poole's textbook on contract law (15th edn, Oxford university press 2021) 1
2
Loftus v Roberts [1902] 18 TLR 532
3
C/f Hillas & Co. Ltd v Acros Ltd [1932] LT 503
4
Taylor v Laird [1865] 25 LJ EX 329
5
J Poole and others, Poole's textbook on contract law (15th edn, Oxford university press 2021) 3
6
Moran v Salfords university [1993] EWCA CIV J1112-11
7
J Poole and others, Poole's textbook on contract law (15th edn, Oxford university press 2021) 1
8
J Poole and others, Poole's textbook on contract law (15th edn, Oxford university press 2021) 10
9
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
10
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller soniyabegh. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
69052 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now