Law Course Assignment US

It is possible for Sunshine to bring an action of specific performance against Ziyi requiring that the latter perform what she was under an obligation to do. On the other hand, Ziyi can defend herself by alleging that the terms of the contract were vague/ ambiguous. It is not clear how many bags of Mandarins Sunshine require. In the verbal / oral agreement he states that he wants 1000 bags. At the end of the week, he calls Ziyi to tell her that he is comfortable with either 1000 or 500 bags where the terms of contract are ambiguous and can be argued that there was no contract at all.

The rule of acceptance of an offer is that acceptance once made cannot be worked. Ziyi accepted Sunshine’s offer and then revoked it. This gives Sunshine a right to sue her. It is irrelevant whether acceptance was by word of mouth or in writing. 3. Kiki has offered to sell Sasha has jeep for $5,000. His offer to sell the jeep is valid because an offer may be made orally or by conduct. The terms of the offer are quite clear and cannot be ruled out on grounds of ambiguity. However, there is not acceptance in this case. Hence, there is no valid contract. Under the rules governing acceptance, acceptance or the lack of it is effective immediately.

The letter of acceptance is posted or e- mailed. It will not matter whether or not the letter crossing Kiki’s offer reached him or not. Kiki has, through the courts, compel Sasha to prove his claims that he replied the E – mail canceling his (Kiki’s) offer. In Household Fire Insurance Co. V Grant, the defendants applied for shares in the company of the plaintiffs. The offer was accepted and a letter of allotment was posted to the defendants. Unfortunately the letter never reached the defendants who later refused to take up shares. It was held that the contract was complete when the letter was placed on the postal box.

The defendants were liable to take up their shares. In Kiki’s case, the mail rejecting the offer became effective when Sasha clicked the “send” button. There is an implied authorization by the offeror when he makes his offer by post/ mail that the same be accepted, through post/ mail. Kiki did not expressly tell Sasha not to reply by post. Therefore it was implied that Sasha was to use the same communication mode to reply his acceptance or refusal to accept Kiki’s offer. Kiki cannot therefore demand that Sasha ought to have used a faster means of communication. A mail as a form of communication is not an instantaneous form of communication.

Legally, where there is such a communication between the parties the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror. In Entores Ltd Vs Miles Far East the plaintiffs in London made an offer by telex to the defendants through their agent in Holland. Acceptance of the offer was communicated and received by the plaintiffs on their telex machine in London. The court had to determine whether the contract was made in London or in Holland. It was held that since communication by telex was instantaneous, the contract was concluded in London where the acceptance was received by the offeror.

But unlike the above case, the case at hand does not involve instantaneous communication hence there was no valid contract. It can also be viewed that Sasha made a counter offer which legally extinguishes the original offer. In Hyde V Wrench, offered in writing to sell his farm to Hyde for ? 1,000 W. refused to accept the counter off. It later agreed with the original offer of ? 1,000 but W refused to accept. In a suit for specific performance, it was held that there was no contract. 4. One of the legal issues arising from this case is that of privity of contract. A contract creates rights and obligations only between parties related to it.

A contract does not confer rights on a stranger nor does it impose obligations on a stranger. By using a standard contract, the Mozarts and Wagners made a legal error since this document did not bind them. The Wagners have a right to deny liability of providing the appliances or fancy drapes and Persian carpets. Under the sale of Goods Act Such a contract with such a value of $15000 could have been put in writing. If otherwise, the contract will be unenforceable. But the Mozarts would have a right to enforce a contract of Record through the courts to get the appliances/fancy drapes and Persian carpets.