Law Case Study Essay

QUESTIONOn 1 October, purchaser saw a courier van with a FOR SALE sign that included a tele rally bend and a charge of $25,000 cash. That night, vendee called seller. purchaser explained that he would have to borrow the capital but could get it next week. vendor provided his address to vendee and told Buyer, If you want the van, mail me a chip for $5000. Pay the balance by1 November. Later that day, Buyer mail Seller a $5000 cheque. The next night, at Buyers 18th birthday company, Buyer discussed the deal with Investor. After buying the van, Buyer planned to start a document courier service, and he had spent $1200 on origin cards, flyers and a cellular phone. Buyer projected a profit of $50,000 in the first year. Investor was impressed with Buyers plans and agreed to loan Buyer $20,000 to buy the van.On 25 October, Buyer called Seller to pick up the van. Seller refused and said someone had snaped him $35,000 for the van. Seller had not cash Buyers cheque as yet. Seller t wirled to deposit the cheque and give him the van if Buyer would pay Seller $20,000 now plus $400 a month for 25 months. Buyer laughed and said, Yeah, right. provided without a van, Buyer would not be able to start his courier service. Investor wants to hire you to give Buyer legal advice. Prepare a memorandum addressing the following matters in detail, and including relevant incase rectitude to give your arguments What are Buyers potential claims against Seller? What are Sellers potential defences? Who is presumable to prevail in the event this case goes to court? Assume Buyer prevails in his lawsuit against Seller. What change is Buyer likely to receive from the court?SUMMARY AND germane(predicate) FACTSIn this case Buyer is complainant whereas Seller is defendant.October 1Buyer saw courier van FOR SALE with a telephone number at the scathe of$25000. Buyer called seller later at night and told him that he could borrow money by next week. Seller demanded $5000 by cheque a nd to pay re main(prenominal)ing by November 1. Buyer mailed the cheque.October 2Buyer became a major. Buyer spent $1200 on courier service advertisement. Investor loaned vendee $20,000.October 25Seller refused as he had gotten a better offer of $35,000.Seller offered to deposit the vendees un-cashed cheque on conditions for the buyer to pay $20,000 for van + $400 for the next 25 months. Buyer refused his forward-looking offer.ISSUE(S)The main issue is this scenario is whether it is a validated compress or not. If yes, then what are the rights and dam advances usable to buyer on breach of nail down by seller? The following sections of Australian bundle law should be satisfied in order to take up this contract valid. (see below) These divisors need to be explored to determine whether it is applicable.RULE/ RELEVANT LAWSAll the agreements are contracts if they are do by the free consent of the parties competent to contract, for a rightful(a) status and with a lawful obje ct and are not expressly declared to be void. The somebody making the offer is known as the offerer, proposer, or declarer and the person to whom it is make is called the offeree or proposee. When the offeree pick outs the offer, he is called the acceptor or promise. When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing , or promise to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or fasting or promise is called a consideration for the promise. Every person is competent to contract if heis an age of majority,Is a sound mind,And is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. actionA contract is formed valid if there is an offer, acceptance and consideration.FORMATION OF THE VALID CONTRACT stretch forth VS. INVITATION TO OFFERThere are some kinds of activities which appear to be making offer but licitly are not, for instance, distributing broachers and circulars, display of goods for sale and advertising. So the seller could raise the point that he didnt make an offer. He only made an invitation to make an offer. Partridge vs. Crittenden 19681 The FOR SALE sign would not considered as an offer since it is an invitation to make an offer. In this case, buyer made an offer by profession the seller.ACCEPTANCEFor making a valid contract following elements should be essential offer, acceptance and bearing/consideration (Graw, S. (2002). An introduction to the law of contract. (4th ed) chapter 2, page 94). Buyer made an offer to the seller but was unable to enter into a contract since he did not have money until the next week. But the seller shows a manifestation of an intention that he wanted to accept his offer. Seller made a counter offer by inquire buyer to send him $5000 on the same day by cheque through post and the domicile of amount until November 1. The postal rule of acceptance is applied. In this scenario, buyer accepted the offer when he maile d the $5000 the next day because this way seller wanted the acceptance. A valid contract is formed which is irrevokable until November 1. Routledge v. Grant, (1828) 4 Bing. 653 2INTENTION AND CONSIDERATIONFor the agreement to be viewed as a contract, it must either be support by consideration or be a formal contract. This is the third essential element required to form a valid contract. (M.L Barron, fundamental of business law, chapter 7, page 207) The consideration is this case is $5000 from the promisor to the promisee to exert the option open Currie vs. Misa 918750 L.R. 10 ex.1533.CAACITY OF PARTIESThe buyer was minor at the formation of contract October 1. This could be the seller defends against the buyer that he was a minor at that time and the agreement is ab initio since the consideration would not counted. According to the Australian Consumer Law some people are under a disability when it comes to making contracts (e.g. minors) their capacity to contract is restricted. (M .L Barron, fundamental of business law, chapter 7, page193). Consideration which passed under the earlier contract potentiometernot be implied into a contract which the minor enters on attaining majority. Thus, the consideration given during the minority is no consideration. If it is infallible a fresh contract may be entered into by the minor on attaining majority provided it is supported by fresh consideration. Lesile V. Shiell, (1914) 3 K. B. 6074. The completion of agreement was November 1 and buyer turned into a major on October 2. And both the parties were agreed till October 24. Seller could not accuse that the contract is ab-initio because they have correlative consideration till October 24.It makes the contract voidable at the option of buyer not the seller at the time since the seller is unaware of the fact that he is a minor. But in the completion tip buyer becomes a major. Therefore, seller bay windownot terminate the contract on basis of that. There is a valid cons ideration from both of the parties- from buyer that he will pay him until November 1 and sellers agreed on it. The contract becomes irrevocable. In spite of whether seller sending the cheque back, or didnt cash the cheque. He can indicate that he didnt accept it. But the acceptance is made at the time when he received the cheque. If it is a valid contract and someone does not perform it on their part of bargain. In other words, he is repudiating it, and then the words must be certain. When buyer calls the seller he jilted to sell his van. But buyer has an option available to purchase it until November 1. Seller can argue that there wasnt a proper contract it was preliminary negotiations. He can argue that he made a counter offer. If the case goes to the court buyer will prevail the law suit.Damages available to buyerBreaches of contract are normally remedied by an award of restitution- an amount of money that is gainful as compensation, fairly and reasonably considered to arise naturally from the breach itself. It is reasonably supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach (Gillies, P. (2004). work law. (12th Ed.) Chapter 8, page 325). If the court gives decision in favour of buyer and it concludes that the contract is valid. Then buyer can sue the seller and at a time return of his $5000 cheque and for any actual, consequential and extra damages Hadley vs. Baxendale5.Inorder to obtain consequential damages seller must have known about the losings that are caused by his breach. Buyer will argue that he has lost $1200 on cards, flyers and cell phone call as well as $50,000 that he can generate annually from that van. Seller could argue that buyer is not entitled for these damages since there is nothing mention in the contract retaining to these loses. The court will favour seller over here since it is not a unique van that buyer cannot do the business without it. When a contract has been broken, the hurt party can recover from the other party such damages as naturally and directly arose in the usual course of things from the breach.This means that the damages must be the proximate consequence of the breach of contract. These damages are known as public and/ or actual damages. Buyer can sue for actual damages, which would be the difference in price of the van and the comparable prevailing price in market. He can also obtain the special damages which would be costs curtailing from the breach like wastage of time and money from searching a new one.CONCLUSIONSeller made an inviting gesture for an offer for his good. Buyer made an offer by calling the seller for his good however he could not enter the contract for lack of money. Seller made a counter offer by asking for a mailed $5000 cheque. Buyer accepted the offer and therefore got into contract. The contract was made on the 2nd of October, one day before the buyer became a major, and was standing until the 1st of November, before which the seller backed out of the contract at the 25th of October. Seller may argue that the contract was not ab initio as the buyer was a minor at the time of contract. However, the buyer may argue that since the seller agreed to the contract, by accepting the mailed cheque, later the buyer was a major the contract is not ab initio and in fact does exist. In case the case goes to court the buyer will prevail in the law suit as the injured party.REFERENCESTEXT BOOK(Graw, S. (2002). An introduction to the law of contract. (4th ed) chapter 2, page 94) (M.L BARRON, fundamental of business law, chapter 7, page 207) (M.LBarron, fundamental of business law, chapter 7, page 193) (Gillies, P. (2004). Business law. (12th Ed.) Chapter 8, page 325) Gibson, A. and Fraser, D, (2007). Business law (3rd ed.) Chapter 7, page 293 CASESPartridge vs. Crittenden 19681Partridge v Crittenden was a landmark 1968 British Court ruling that set legal precedent in that cou ntry. The case cogitate on the nature of advertisements in regard to the obligation of those who post them. Specifically, this case involved the sale of a bird, which the buyer, Crittenden, claimed was misrepresented in the ad. While Partridge initially lost the case, he later won on appeal. The significance of this ruling relates not to the sale of birds in particular, but whether an ad is an offer for sale or an invitation to treat. Routledge v. Grant, (1828) 4 Bing. 653 2Defendant (D) offered to buy plaintiffs (P) house for a specific price with a definite answer to be given within six weeks. D was not bound to keep the offer open Best CJ if six weeks are given on one side to accept an offer, the other has six weeks to put an end to it. One party cannot be bound without the other.Currie vs. Misa 1875 L.R. 10 ex.1533 eve relatively trivial things can be sufficient consideration e.g. chocolate wrappers but a promise not to bore someone cannot, because it has no value.Lesile V. Shi ell, (1914) 3 K. B. 6074.Defendant obtained loans from plaintiff by fraudulently misrepresenting that he was of full age at the time of contract. Defendant sued him to recover the money. Hadley vs. Baxendale5A shaft in Hadleys (P) mill broke rendering the mill inoperable. Hadley hired Baxendale (D) to transport the broken mill shaft to an maneuver in Greenwich so that he could make a duplicate. Hadley told Baxendale that the shaft must be sent immediately and Baxendale promised to deliver it the next day. Baxendale did not know that the mill would be inoperable until the new shaft arrived. Baxendale was thoughtless and did not transport the shaft aspromised, causing the mill to remain shut down for an surplus five days. Hadley had paid 2 pounds four shillings to ship the shaft and sued for 300 pounds in damages ascribable to lost profits and wages. The jury awarded Hadley 25 pounds beyond the amount already paid to the court and Baxendale appealed.