Contract LawScenario 1In this particular case, the issue here is that of invitation to treat, offer and acceptance. When Ralph goes to the shop, he enquires the price of the camera. Immediately after he is told the price, he gives his own stand on the price. What the shopkeeper did is that he was making an invitation to treat to Ralph. Afterwards, Ralph makes an offer to the shopkeeper which is not accepted (Hugh, 2010). For a contract to be present, then there must be an offer and acceptance among other elements.
There is no doubt that the offer from the “offeror” must be accepted by the ‘offeree”. In such state of affairs there is a meeting of minds between the two parties involved (Atiyah, 2006). In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist, it was decided that it was an invitation to treat as opposed to an offer (Hugh, 2010). Consequently, this rendered the contract unenforceable as there was no contract from the onset. In this case the owner of the chemist had put certain medicine on display whereby the Pharmaceutical Society argued that it was not in order.
The court held that displaying was simply making an invitation to treat. This is similar to the case involving Ralph. Ballarat Electronics had put the camera on display. It would be in order to deduce that what it was doing was simply making an invitation to treat. In such circumstances it is the customer to make an offer to the shopkeeper. Ralph does this but the shopkeeper rejects the offer. Ralph the goes to other shops around searching for a similar camera but discovers that Ballarat Electronics was in fact cheaper by at least $ 50.On making the discovery, he goes back to Lauren with $ 250.
To his amazement, Lauren refuses to sell the camera. What Ralph did was not different to what he did on the first occasion. He is only making a new offer. But the offer is also rejected (Atiyah, 2006). Mutual consent is an imperative component of a contract. How is mutual consent arrived at? It is simply arrived at through offer and acceptance. Normally, so as to be enforceable, a contract ought to entail the following elements: Mutual consent. Offer and acceptanceConsiderationGood faithPerformanceThe involved parties ought to have a convergence of minds.
Both must be at the same level of recognition of the boundaries of the contract. That implies that they must be aware of what the contract entails (Atiyah, 2006). Similarly, for a contract to be enforceable, there is supposed to be more than one party involved. It is common knowledge that a contract must involve two or more parties. One cannot make a contract on his own.
There is one party that makes the offer who is the offeror and the other party on the other side who the “offer” is being made to. This party is called the “offeree”. In this case, Ralph is the offeror while Lauren is the offeree. An offeree is at liberty to accept or reject an offer. Since this is the case, there is no doubt that Lauren is no exemption. He is at liberty to reject or accept the offer made to him by Ralph. He does not accept the offer which is okay.
He has not violated anybody’s rights. There is no contract between him and Ralph.