Enforceability of Contract

The main issue of the case is to determine whether the contract made in between Jasmine and Patrick is enforceable or not.

Considering the main facts of the case, it can be stated that that the subject matter of the case is based on the common rule of offer and acceptance of contract. Further, specifically the case is depending on the telephonic acceptance of an offer and the validity of the same. According to the common rule of law, contract is an agreement that is enforceable under law (Stone 2014). There are four main elements of contract that can make its application valid such as offer, acceptance, consideration and legal intention.

At the very instance, a contract will be made when an offer has been made and the same has been accepted by the person to whom the contract has been made. However, there are certain forms of acceptance of contract (Bayern 2016). In general principle, offer should be accepted by the offeree when acceptance has been communicated directly. However, there are certain circumstances, when direct communication is not required. In these cases, acceptance could be made in the absence of the offeror. This circumstance is based on the principle of inter-absentes (Wolkonski 2017). A telephonic conversation or postal rule will be laid under such principle. In case of Adam v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250, it has been mentioned where the acceptance letter has been posted by the offeree, contract will be taken place. Further, it has been mentioned in Holwell securities Ltd v Hughes (1974) that if the offeror has made a clear statement that offer can be accepted other means, the offer can be accepted in that process. Further, in Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1, it has been held that there should be certain legal intention between the parties through the contract. Further, according to the basic rules of the contract, there should be certain considerations in the contractual agreement as mentioned in Chappel & Co v Nestle & Co (1960).

According to the main facts of the case, it has been observed that the contracting subject is an antique jewellery box. The price of the box was $500, but the offeror has asked Patrick to pay $400 and told him to communicate her for decision on the next day. The offeror has given her card and contact numbers of both the parties have been exchanged. On that evening, Patrick has accepted the offer through telephonic message. According to the common rule, all the elements of contract have been fulfilled such as offer, acceptance, consideration and legal intention of the parties. Further, according to the principle of inter-absentes, the offer has been accepted when Patrick has communicated with Jasmine, the shop keeper. Therefore, valid contract has been made. It is no issue whether Jasmine has heard the message or not.

Offer and Acceptance

Conclusion:

Therefore, it has been observed that all the elements have been fulfilled in this case. Further, the contract made in between the parties is legally enforceable and Jasmine is under an obligation to sell the jewellery box to Patrick.

The main issue of the case is to decide whether Alfonso could claim for the prize from Mobcap Oils Ltd or not.

The primary issue raised in this case based on the intention to create legal relationship and consideration. Both the things are elements of valid contract. According to the common law, when some offer has been made by a party, he should have certain intention to create a relationship through the contract with the other party (Morris 2016). However, any social or domestic agreement should be excluded from such intention. This principle has been established in Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571. However, it has been mentioned in Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349 that if an agreement has been made on the context of commercialisation, the parties should have the intention to create legal relations.

On the other hand, it can be stated that there should be certain consideration in a contract. In Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851, it has been noted by the court that the consideration should have certain legal value. Further, it has been observed in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 that if an offer or reward has been made by a company to pay certain amount to others, it will become binding on them if anyone has accepted the same. Further, the nature of the offer could not be unilateral. However, in Stilk v Myrrick [1809] EWHC KB J58, it has been observed that where there is an existing contractual duty between the parties, no extra payment or consideration could be demanded by the parties.

In the present case, it has been observed that a car rally has been organised by Mobcap Oils and the company has decided a winner’s prize of $500,000. The winner of the race was working for the company and it was decided between them that the company will pay him a weekly payment and he will race for the company. It can be stated that there was an intention to create relations between the parties and there was certain consideration. However, according to the decision made in Stilk v Myrrick [1809], it can be stated that the winner of the race could not claim the winner’s prize, as there was an existing contractual liabilities in between them. Further, the driver of the company or the winner has not gone beyond his existing duties.

Conclusion:

It can therefore, be stated that the winner could not claim the prize from the company. However, he can ask for the weekly payment that has been decided in between them prior to the race.

Reference:

Books

Bayern, Shawn. “Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law.” California Law Review 103 (2016).

Morris, Elliott. “Betraying Formality for False Equity: The Danger of Transposing Equitable Considerations into Contract Law to Remedy Regulatory Pitfalls.” Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 41 (2016): 525.

Stone, Richard. “Offer and Acceptance.” In Q&A Contract Law, pp. 23-46. Routledge, 2014.

Wolkonski, David. “The Postal Rule of Acceptance in a Digital World. Does the Postal Rule apply to E-Mail?.” (2017).

Cases

Adam v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

Chappel & Co v Nestle & Co (1960)

Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349

Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1

Stilk v Myrrick [1809] EWHC KB J58

Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 85