Legal principle Paper Example

Explain the reference to legal principle and relevant case law, the legal aspect of placing the ‘Klick’ clock in the shop window with a price tag attached. Ann antiques has a rare ‘Klick’ clock on its shop with price tags of €1,000 attached. In spite of its wording the sign in the window does not constitute a legal offer, it is merely an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is an indication that the person who invite is willing to enter into a negotiation but it is not yet prepared to be bound. This case may be seen in Fisher v Bell (1961).

It was held that having switch-blade knives in the window of a shop was not the same as offering them for sale. TASK 2 Analyze the reference to legal principle and relevant because law, the legal effect of the event that transpired between Ann and Beth ignoring the conversation that took place between Carol and Beth and advice as to whether the valid contract exist between them. The original invitation to treat at €1,000 was met by an offer from Beth which offers €500 on the ‘Klick’ clock. After Ann received an offer from Beth, Ann made a counter offer on the clock that she would sell €750 for it. It is up to Beth to decide whether to accept the offer or not.

A counter offer arises when the offeree tries to change the terms of an original offer. For example, the Hyde v Wrench (1940) case. In that case, on 6th June, Wrench offered to sell his estate to Hyde for ? 1,000 but then Hyde made counter offer with ? 950. On the 27th June Wayne rejected Hyde’s offer and on 29th, Hyde offered back ? 1,000. In the end, Wayne refused to sell and also Hyde sued for breach of contract.

Beth didn’t reject the counter offer but requested time to consider Ann’s offer. If there’s no consideration, then Ann may revoke the offer before the end of the agreed period. It is just like in the Routledge v Grant case. Grant wrote to Routledge offering to purchase the lease of his house. The offer was to remain open for six weeks. Grant then changed his mind about purchasing the lease and, within the six weeks, withdrew his offer. After Routledge had received Grant’s letter withdrawing the offer he wrote to Grant, within the six weeks, accepting Routledge’s offer.

The issue before the court was whether a Grant could withdraw his offer within the six week period. The letter was received and delivered late to Ann on thursday and the clock was already sold to Carol who is a clock enthusiast within the time that Ann gave to Beth to consider the offer. Like in the Adams v Lindsell (1818) case, where the defendants made an offer by letter to the claimant on 2nd September requiring an answer ‘in course of post’. It reached the claimant on 5th September and they immediately posted a letter of acceptance which reached late on 9 September.

They assumed that the absence of a reply within the expected period indicated non acceptance and sold the goods to another buyer on 8th September. The contract is concluded even if the letter subsequently fails to reach the offeror. TASK 3 Access with reference to legal principle and relevant case law of the legal impact on conversation that took place between Carol & Beth. In the case of Dickinson v Dodds (1876), the defendant offered to sell his house to the claimant and promised to keep the offer open until friday.

On the thursday, the defendant accepted an offer from a third party to purchase the house. The defendant then asked a friend to tell the claimant that the offer was withdrawn. The claimant went round to the claimant’s house first thing friday morning purporting to accept the offer. He then brought an action seeking specific performance of the contract. The offer had been effectively revoked. In this case, Beth did not provide or make any consideration for Ann’s promise to give her.

Three days to consider her offer to sell the clock at €750 and can revoke the offer within the period of time. Beth could have not accepts the offer after she was informed of the revocation of the offer which occurred through Carol, a clearly reliable source. Just like in case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven, The defendant offered to sell goods to the plaintiff through a letter dated 1 October. On 8 October, prior to acceptance, defendant posted a letter revoking the offer. This letter was received by plaintiff on 20 October. On 11 October plaintiff received the letter and dispatched an acceptance. An offer was containing a price escalation clause.