Comlaw Aropa Assignment
Comlaw 201 Aropa Assignment.
Question 1
Offer is an expression of willingness to enter into a legally binding contract on the terms proposed once the offer is accepted. This letter is an offer since the terms proposed are complete and it is communication to the offeree. The letter was definitely sent to Andrew by mistake since the company makes this offer only to their regular customers and to those who have signed long term supply contract. Andrew did not satisfy both these conditions. According to the case of McMahon v Gilberd & Co, the ‘reward’ for each returned soft drink bottle is made to their customer only. Technically, the bottle dealer is not their customer and therefore the case was invalid. In conclusion, although Andrew replied to the offer before the deadline, the company has no legal obligation to supply Andrew.
Question 2
In this situation, Sarah has met the term of the offer as she has expressed willingness to enter into a legally binding contract. The reply from Sarah shows that she agreed to accept the offer for 300 tonnes. Her request to collect the fertilizers in early October is merely a request for information since she is willing to pay for the delay. It is not a counter offer by Sarah as she is willing to collect the fertilizers if the company does not agree to her request. Therefore, the offer is still valid as she was only requesting for more information. Similarly, in the case of Stevenson v McLean, the plaintiffs telegraph was only a request for information and is not a counter offer. Thus, the offeror has legal obligation to sell to the plaintiff since he has accepted the offer via post. The email sent by the company to Sarah on 21 July to revoke the offer is invalid because she has already accepted the offer. Revocation of offer can only be done before the communication of acceptance by the offeree. The method of reply used by Sarah through email is valid as long as it is not less advantageous to the offeror although the
Question 1
Offer is an expression of willingness to enter into a legally binding contract on the terms proposed once the offer is accepted. This letter is an offer since the terms proposed are complete and it is communication to the offeree. The letter was definitely sent to Andrew by mistake since the company makes this offer only to their regular customers and to those who have signed long term supply contract. Andrew did not satisfy both these conditions. According to the case of McMahon v Gilberd & Co, the ‘reward’ for each returned soft drink bottle is made to their customer only. Technically, the bottle dealer is not their customer and therefore the case was invalid. In conclusion, although Andrew replied to the offer before the deadline, the company has no legal obligation to supply Andrew.
Question 2
In this situation, Sarah has met the term of the offer as she has expressed willingness to enter into a legally binding contract. The reply from Sarah shows that she agreed to accept the offer for 300 tonnes. Her request to collect the fertilizers in early October is merely a request for information since she is willing to pay for the delay. It is not a counter offer by Sarah as she is willing to collect the fertilizers if the company does not agree to her request. Therefore, the offer is still valid as she was only requesting for more information. Similarly, in the case of Stevenson v McLean, the plaintiffs telegraph was only a request for information and is not a counter offer. Thus, the offeror has legal obligation to sell to the plaintiff since he has accepted the offer via post. The email sent by the company to Sarah on 21 July to revoke the offer is invalid because she has already accepted the offer. Revocation of offer can only be done before the communication of acceptance by the offeree. The method of reply used by Sarah through email is valid as long as it is not less advantageous to the offeror although the