Contract between Andrew and “Books for all” (Was it broken by either party)A contract exists and is formed in law only when there is an agreement (i. e. offer and acceptance), a consideration and an intention. An offer is an account of intent by the offeror to perform according to the terms of the offer if it is accepted and therefore be bound to the contract that will exist on acceptance. Also the offer should be brought into the knowledge of the concern for it to be valid ( Taylor v Laird) and should have been made equally to one person or the whole world (Carlil v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). In this case of Andrew and Book for All, the latter offered discount to Andrew on the purchase of books by where the terms were that the buyer would purchase books from a list of titles which would be at a significant discount from the rates at which other shopkeepers sell.
Andrew quickly accepted the terms and also became a member of the club. This is a case of ‘an offer of bargain’ which is applicable only until it is accepted by the latter (Eliason v Henshaw) which was duly acknowledged by ‘Books for all’.
Similarly as in Eliason v Henshaw, the offer of bargain was made by the seller to the buyer but the acceptance was wrongly sent to a place other than that stated in the offer which made the offer of bargain not enforceable. In case of Andrew and bookshop however, there was an offer and so was its acceptance. The doctrine of consideration states that something must be either given or promised in return for a promise in order to make it binding.
A promise is not binding and not legally enforceable, without consideration. Consideration can be understood as ‘price of promise’ (Janet O’Sullivan and Jonathan Hilliard). Without the price, the promisor’s promise cannot be enforceable. The issue here is how a promise made by A can be supported and enforced B’s reciprocal promise. The three essential elements of consideration which are Benefit/ Detriment Requirement ascertain that either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee incurred (Bolton v Madden).
This can be explained as the price of the promise is received by the promisor and given by the promisee. Consideration has to be provided in order to make these promises legally enforceable. Also, The ‘Bargain’ Requirement (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd ) states that as ‘An act or forbearance of the one party, or the promise thereof is the price for which the promise is bought. ’ Most contracts require the benefit conferred on the promisor or the detriment suffered by the promisee must be given in return for the promise.
Quid pro quo (this for that), is the consideration in the form of a price in return for the exchange of a promise. Then to be seen is that a consideration should be Sufficient but need not be adequate (Woolworths Ltd v Kelly). As long as the ‘something’ that the law regards as valuable, it is a good and sufficient consideration. The ‘price of promise’ is no need to be economic equivalent of the promise (Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd).
It is because the law of contract does not play any role to make sure any parties of getting a good deal and it is against the economic freedom. The ‘price of promise’ cannot be determined by any law. The ‘something’ can be worth more than the price one would want to pay, but at the same time it can be worth nothing other than a piece of rubbish to someone else.