1. The rules governing this agreement are the contract law. In this case there is an agreement between the two parties to carry out some contractual obligations. The law of contract recognizes both verbal and non verbal contract. In this case it is a verbal contract where there is offer and acceptance. A contract is an agreement between two persons which is intended to create a legally binding obligation. A contract must have offer and acceptance there should be an intention to create legal relationship, the parties must be in a contractual capacity. The contract under this case is a simple contract and be enforceable in a code of law. It is a commercial agreement which is enforceable although entered verbally. An offer has the following;
An offer may be made to a specific person or to any member of a group of persons or to the world at large, but it cannot form the basis of a contract until it has been accepted by an ascertained person or group of persons. If A makes an offer to B, it is a specific offer and B is the only person who can accept it. But in many cases, it is immaterial to whom the offer is made to the world at large and can be accepted by anyone just by acting on them.
An offer may be made by word of mouth, in writing or by conduct. The person making the offer is called the offeror and the person to whom the offer is made is called the offeree. A common example of offer by conduct may be an ominous plying on a particular route. It is an offer by the owner of the bus to carry passengers at the published fares for various stages. The offer is accepted by conduct when a passenger boards the bus with the intention of becoming a passenger.
2. In this case, there is only a contract between Barett and Henderson and there is no contract between Barret and preferred contractors. Preferred contractors became guarantees to the contract. Barrett will not recover any amount from preferred contractors because the statement that came from Barrett was that “he could use his influence to try getting his money from Henderson”. This does not constitute to a contract therefore it is null and void and not enforceable in any court of law.
3. This is a case of battle of forms. Ellen was shopping at an online auction site. The submissi9on of 200 dollars was an offer from Ellen. The fact that she was the highest bidder did not make her entitled to the goods. Because in the case of the online shop the goods were displayed this is an invitation to treat. Therefore, Ellen is not entitled to property because there was no offer and acceptance to result into a contract. It was only an invitation to treat. You cannot sue offer invitation to treat. The following case is the best example of an invitation to treat.
PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF BRITAIN V BOOTS CHEMISTS, 1953
Goods were sold in B’s shop under the self service system. Customers selected their purchases from the shelves, put them into baskets supplied by B and took the offer when he presented them at the cash desk where they paid the price. Held the customer made the offer when he presented them at the cash desk and not when he removed them from the shelves.
4. In this case, there is sufficient information on part of Douros because he introduced the owner and Kelley to the property. In the agreement signed one of the conditions of paying the commission was that if a sale resulted upon signing the contract he could have paid the commission. In this case, if it was not Douros, Kelley could have not known whether the property existed. It does not matter whether Douro had negotiated the price. In this case, Douro was an agent and he completed his work upon revealing the principle and therefore the sale will result into a commission to Douro.
5. Adhesion contract is where one party has more powers than the other in deciding the terms of the contract. In order for a contract to be described as adhesion one party must have an equal bargaining power with the other. It is not a straightforward contract because one party gains more than the other.
6. There are various remedies available to Larry. Once one has entered into a contract, the contract should be discharged by performance. There are four remedies available for breach of contract, they include refusal of further performance, action for damages, action for specific performance and action for injunction. In this case, Larry will sue for damages and action for specific performance. If Larry had incurred some loss associated with the contract then he will be required to recover the loss which is associated with it. The main aim is to mitigate Larry’s loss and return him to the position he was before the contract. He will only sue for ordinary damages in this case. Another option available for him is specific performance. Specific performance is inequitable remedy which is awarded at the discretion of the court to a person who has suffered a legal injury where damages are not adequate. I t is normally awarded where there is a sale of land or property or a sale of rare good which are not easily available in the market therefore Larry will succeed in this option.
Gower, L.C.B. and Davies, P.L. (2006) Principles of Modern Company Law Sweet and Maxwell
Lum K. and Yeo V. (2005); Contract law, Butterworths
Tan C.H. (1998); Walter Woon on company law, Thomson – Sweet & Maxwell
Tabalujan B & Du Toit-Low V. (1994); Singapore Business law, Business law Asia