Brenkibon V Skyways Case Study
Legal Issue
Will the law recognize a contract between Moving Earth and Shake and Rattle LTD?
Legal Relations
Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 held that it is necessary to determine between social and domestic agreements and agreements that are within a commercial context. Alison and Simon agreed to business relations and there was an intention to agree, a meeting of the minds.
Offer
Megalift v Terminals [2009] NSWSC 324 determined quotes can be a binding offer. Berging CJ Eq held that a quote that listed the price and object was an offer. The quote of $120,000 given by Alison may be an offer because supply, delivery and installation are being communicated expressly.
Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 determined that indication of lowest …show more content…
In Brinkibon v Stahag [1983] 2 AC 34, Lord Fraser stated “receipt of a telex on offeror’s machine is effective delivery since it’s the principal’s responsibility to arrange prompt handling of messages in his office”.
Simon forgot about the scheduled overhaul so acceptance may be effective delivery because Alison never received any indication/warning message that acceptance isn’t delivered. Not receiving a notification of non-delivery may be equal to a receipt of delivery. Simon was expecting an acceptance making it his responsibility to ensure messages are received effectively and promptly.
With the overhaul delayed due to aftershock at 10:25 p.m., acceptance reached Simon’s inbox at 9:30 a.m., 9 February. Regardless of when Simon received acceptance, it eventually came to Simon’s attention. Simon couldn’t perform the contract because the circumstances had changed and therefore, his intentions. Had the aftershock not occurred Simon would want to be legally
Will the law recognize a contract between Moving Earth and Shake and Rattle LTD?
Legal Relations
Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 held that it is necessary to determine between social and domestic agreements and agreements that are within a commercial context. Alison and Simon agreed to business relations and there was an intention to agree, a meeting of the minds.
Offer
Megalift v Terminals [2009] NSWSC 324 determined quotes can be a binding offer. Berging CJ Eq held that a quote that listed the price and object was an offer. The quote of $120,000 given by Alison may be an offer because supply, delivery and installation are being communicated expressly.
Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 determined that indication of lowest …show more content…
In Brinkibon v Stahag [1983] 2 AC 34, Lord Fraser stated “receipt of a telex on offeror’s machine is effective delivery since it’s the principal’s responsibility to arrange prompt handling of messages in his office”.
Simon forgot about the scheduled overhaul so acceptance may be effective delivery because Alison never received any indication/warning message that acceptance isn’t delivered. Not receiving a notification of non-delivery may be equal to a receipt of delivery. Simon was expecting an acceptance making it his responsibility to ensure messages are received effectively and promptly.
With the overhaul delayed due to aftershock at 10:25 p.m., acceptance reached Simon’s inbox at 9:30 a.m., 9 February. Regardless of when Simon received acceptance, it eventually came to Simon’s attention. Simon couldn’t perform the contract because the circumstances had changed and therefore, his intentions. Had the aftershock not occurred Simon would want to be legally