According to the Australian law we find that the presumptions of undue influence is usually presumed in relationships such as that of an advocate and his client, a teacher and his pupil, a parent and child . This actually applies in this case where we find that McCain was being pressurized by his wife to sublease his property to his brother in-law. This is well explained in the case of Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black, 1934: the defendant, a young married woman under the influence of her mother, entered into a money lending contract for her mother’s benefit.
The money lenders knew of this situation and subsequently sued the mother and the daughter on a promissory note. Held that the contract could be set aside as the daughter was under the undue influence of her mother In the case of McCain and Huckabee, there was an acceptance of the offer where according to the law an offer can only be accepted by the person to whom it is made. This indicates that an offer can be accepted orally, in writing or by conduct. It is believed that in order to make a contract binding, the acceptance must be communicated.
The acceptance is also supposed to be made within the time prescribed by the offeror and if no such time is specified, then within such time as is reasonable having regard to the nature of the contract. it is indicated that on the 14th of January 2008 the two parties were found to be drafting the terms of their new lease agreement, and due to the busy schedule that Huckabee had they were not put in a position of signing the formal agreement and this made the acceptance to be not acceptable since the law states that the acceptance is considered complete immediately acceptance is past to the offeree.
Here we find that the acceptance was not completed since they did not sign the formal lease agreement. We find that Huckabee was admitted to a hospital with an expected overdose and at the time he was hospitalized the formal lease was yet to be executed and due to his illness McCain decided to cease his dealings with Huckabee and entered a new lease agreement with Mondale for the Zetland property which started on the 1st of February 2008.
The law provides that once an acceptance is made it cannot be revoked. An offer may be revoked by an express notice before it is accepted. But acceptance can not be revoked in any circumstances. This means that the moment a person expresses his acceptance of an offer, that very moment the contract is concluded. And it does not matter whether the acceptance is by word of mouth or in writing and sent by post.
McCain had terminated the offer to Huckabee when the agreement was almost being executed, here we find that this offer was terminated by revocation meaning it was actually withdrawn by McCain, the law provides that revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree, though not necessarily by the offeror himself, it also provides that it is sufficient if the offeree comes to know of it through any reliable source meaning that a third party should be involved through whom such a notice of revocation or withdrawal is passed so that the offeree can not accept the offer.
This is best explained in the case of; Dickinson v Dodds, 1876: on Wednesday, the defendant gave the plaintiff a written offer to sell him his house for ? 800. The offer was to be left open until next Friday 9. a. m. on Thursday; the defendant sold the house to someone else. On that very evening of Thursday, the plaintiff was told of the sale by a third party but before 9 a. m. on Friday, the plaintiff delivered his acceptance to the defendant, which the defendant refused to receive.
It was held by the court that there was a proper revocation of the offer and the plaintiff could not accept it. Christie is therefore advised to know that as the result of the use of revocation of the offer by Monte, she can not therefore claim for the car she had accepted to buy. According to the Australian law an offer lapses by the death or insanity of the offeror or the offeree before acceptance.
McCain had breached his contract since he was operating under the tenancy at will which according which allows the tenant to terminate the lease at any time with the presentation of his termination to the landlord, in this case we find that he did not inform the landlord about his termination and also he breached the contract by transferring his tenancy to a third party without the consent of the landlord.
Therefore he is liable for his torts against the landlord. There are several elements that make a contract to be valid and this includes the following; there must be an offer and an acceptance, generally, for a contract to exist and to be valid more weight is directed to the intention of creating legal relationship by all parties involved therefore consideration must be adhered to for the agreement to be legally binding.
Consideration is therefore classified in two:-Executed consideration where there is an already given part of the value by the promise to the promiser for example: A is a casual worker and is employed by B to work in his farm for a day and is promised by B to be given his wages at the end of the day, A clears his work performing his side of the obligation of digging the farm this explains an executed consideration..
Executory recommendation-this is where an individual promises to do something in future like in the above illustration the consideration for the employer B is Executory until A is issued with his wages at the end of that particular day from B.