Introduction to Contract Law - Essay Example

Running head: CONTRACT LAW Contract Law Name Tutor Date Contract Law Scenario 1 In 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 acceptance Consideration Good faith Performance The 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. Afterwards Ralph comes goes to Lauren with a different price from his original but similar to Lauren’s. It is imperative to note that if somebody makes another offer different from his original one, this is treated as a counter-offer. A counter-offer is not treated as an offer. On the contrary, it is considered to be a rejection to the offer. If a shopkeeper accepts a counter-offer, then a contract will have been made. However, Lauren did none of these. He never accepted the offer or the counter-offer. In the above case none of the major elements of a contract has been fulfilled. Neither has the offer been accepted nor the counter-offer. Similarly, there are no major elements of a contract i.e. offer and acceptance. So being the case, Lauren bears no legal liability whatsoever. He has not breached any contract. Usually, a breach of any contract results in claims of damages. This is what Ralph would be entitled to had Lauren breached their contract. This not being the case, Ralph is not entitled to any claims of damages (Atiyah, 2006). Scenario 2 Usually, a contract entails various elements. These elements are; offer, acceptance and consideration among other equally imperative elements. Craig and Carter’s Dry Cleaners had made a contract. The ingredients of the contract were a coat, cleaning of the coat and equally important is the receipt. The receipt had a description that they would not be responsible for any loss or damage of whatever nature or howsoever caused (Atiyah, 2006). Craig was their customer for a long time. And for the time he had being their customer prior to the present damage, there had been no damage caused to his property. Would one argue that for all that time he had not been reading the instructions on the reverse side of the receipt? “Most probably, no”. But whether he had been reading the instructions or not is not a concern to Carter’s Dry Cleaners. The instructions or the receipt generally is an integral part of the contract. This being the case then it means that Craig was under an obligation to read the instructions on the receipt including those on the reverse side of the receipt (Hugh, 2010). So as to be legally binding, the parties to a contract ought to barter something of worth. There must be a mutual exchange between the two parties. This is what is in general referred to as consideration. It involves forbearance or giving up something. The detriment must be legal and there has to be a bargain. A lawful loss or harm is an assurance to perform a certain act or avoid doing something that one has the lawful right to do or abstaining from doing something that one does not have to do. A bargain is something the offeror wants, generally being one of the lawful detriments (Scott, 2009). The officially authorized detriment and bargain ideologies collaborate in consideration and come up with a barter trade sort of relationship, where both parties consent to barter something that the opposite party may wish to be in possession of (Randy, 2003). In this case, Craig had to part with a certain amount so as to have the cleaning services rendered to him by Carter’s Dry Cleaners. So as for one party to allege the breach of a contract, then he has to show that he has performed his part of the contract to the limit. On showing this, he also has to prove that the other party to the contract either did not perform his part at all or performed his duties recklessly or negligently (Ewan, 2005). Craig has to prove all the above. He will have to prove that he paid as is expected of him and then show the damage caused to his clothes by the dry cleaners. It is important to note that promises of the parties made as consideration are fulfilled in a reciprocating manner. All these arise for the reason that the parties must have anticipated forming a lawful association. Of equal importance too is consent. Parties to a contract must consent (Ewan, 2005). All the above must have been fulfilled by both Craig and Carter’s Dry Cleaners. It was expected of Craig to have read the instructions. In addition to the damage caused on the coat there was extra damage on a mobile phone hidden in one of the pockets of the coat. One may ask if the contract entailed a mobile phone. The answer is no. The contract entailed clothes. Therefore, anything less than the clothes are outside the boundaries of the contract. Craig should not get anything regarding the mobile phone. Despite the fact that the receipt had some description that pointed out that Carter’s Dry Cleaners would not be liable for whatever damage that may occur to the ingredients of the contract ( in this case the clothes), there is some aspect of recklessness or negligence. Craig will be required to show this. If he in deed proves that he performed his part of the contract to the maximum and that the other party to the contract (Carter’s Dry Cleaners) did not perform his part or performed his part negligently or recklessly. When Craig picks his coat from the dry cleaners on a certain Friday, he realizes that there are burn marks on the collar. This was as a result of the dry cleaning procedure. Was this negligence? Yes it was. Was there recklessness? No doubt there was. These two elements of negligence and recklessness entitle Craig to damages. Considering that Craig had performed his duty of paying there would be no reason as to why he should not claim damages. Therefore, Carter’s Dry Cleaners ought to pay $ 195 as damages caused to his property (Paul, 2007). References Atiyah, P. (2006). The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract. New York: Clarendon Press. Ewan M., (2005). Contract Law - Text, Cases and Materials (2005). London: Oxford University Press. Hugh, B. (2010). Contract law. London: Hart. Paul, R. (2007). Law of contract. Foundation studies in law series. Chicago: Pearson Longman. Randy, E. (2003). Contracts. Sydney: Aspen Publishers. Scott F. (2009). "Reciprocal Altruism as the Basis for Contract," 47. Louisville: University of Louisville Law Review. Read More