Contracts in Business
CONTRACTS IN BUSINESS
On the 10th of September an offer was distinguished between Huddersford Electronics Ltd (HE ltd) and Gem Computer Stores (GCS). The offer was an invitation to treat as there is an entitlement that an offer could accepted and therefore, a contract could be formed. An offer is formed as HE ltd posted an offer to sell 10 laptops to GCS, keeping the offer open until the 24th September. A statement is made by HE ltd who is giving information to GCS expressing an intention to sell something in the future. For example, in Harvey v Facey, there was an offer agreeing to buy the pen for £900. This was because information was requested and sent. However, there was no acceptance. Similarly, GCS has just received information, but have yet not agreed to accept the offer. Furthermore, in this case an offer is distinguished from a mere puff as a statement is made by its nature which is yet not intended to have legal relations. Moreover, the case of Partridge v Crittenden illustrates that there was an invitation to treat to induce an offer which hereby made party b make an offer. In relation, HE Ltd have advertised and induced an offer to GCS to make an offer.
Furthermore, on the 20th September the GCS manager forms an enquiry which HE ltd responded respectively. This was just a further enquiry which means that more information has been supplied to GCS. GCS requested for information and some further information was provided back to them as a response.
However, on the 22nd of September, Bertie had some concerns assuming that GCS might have some financial concerns, and therefore, sold the laptop to a third party, Argon Electrics. Previously, on the 20th of September, GCS contacted HE Ltd for further enquiries which means that this was a request for further information. A statement was made by the offeree and is interpreted as asking for further information about the offer as opposed to trying to verify the terms of the offer. This means this is not a
On the 10th of September an offer was distinguished between Huddersford Electronics Ltd (HE ltd) and Gem Computer Stores (GCS). The offer was an invitation to treat as there is an entitlement that an offer could accepted and therefore, a contract could be formed. An offer is formed as HE ltd posted an offer to sell 10 laptops to GCS, keeping the offer open until the 24th September. A statement is made by HE ltd who is giving information to GCS expressing an intention to sell something in the future. For example, in Harvey v Facey, there was an offer agreeing to buy the pen for £900. This was because information was requested and sent. However, there was no acceptance. Similarly, GCS has just received information, but have yet not agreed to accept the offer. Furthermore, in this case an offer is distinguished from a mere puff as a statement is made by its nature which is yet not intended to have legal relations. Moreover, the case of Partridge v Crittenden illustrates that there was an invitation to treat to induce an offer which hereby made party b make an offer. In relation, HE Ltd have advertised and induced an offer to GCS to make an offer.
Furthermore, on the 20th September the GCS manager forms an enquiry which HE ltd responded respectively. This was just a further enquiry which means that more information has been supplied to GCS. GCS requested for information and some further information was provided back to them as a response.
However, on the 22nd of September, Bertie had some concerns assuming that GCS might have some financial concerns, and therefore, sold the laptop to a third party, Argon Electrics. Previously, on the 20th of September, GCS contacted HE Ltd for further enquiries which means that this was a request for further information. A statement was made by the offeree and is interpreted as asking for further information about the offer as opposed to trying to verify the terms of the offer. This means this is not a
Bibliography: Cases Harvey v Facey (1893) AC 552 (PC) Partridge v Crittenden (1965) 1 WLR 1204 DC Stevenson v Mclean (1880) LR 5 QBD 346 Yates Building Co v Pulleyn & Sons (1975) 237 EG 183 (CA) Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 Gurthing v Lynn (1831) 2 B AD 232 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch Butler Machine Tool Ltd v Ex-cell-o Corp Ltd (1979) 1 WLR 401 (CA) Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955)3 WLR 48 (CA) Felthouse v Bindley (1863)11 CB NS 869 Poussard v Spiers (1876) LR 1 QBD 410 Bettini v Gye (1876) LR 1 QBD 183 Courtier v Hastie (1856)5 HL CAS 673 Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864)2 Hurl & C 906 Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939)3 ALL ER 566. Balfour v Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571 Errington v Errington Woods (1952) 1 KB 29 Merrit v Merrit (1970) 1 WLR 1211. Olley v Marlborough Court (1949) 1 KB 532 L’Estange v Graucob (1934) 2 KB 394 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (1951) 1 KB 805 Books Introduction to Business Law, Lucy Jones (2011, Oxford) Websites [ 2 ]. (1965) 1 WLR 1204 DC [ 3 ] [ 4 ]. (1975) 237 EG 183 (CA) [ 5 ] [ 6 ]. (1997) AC 1 HL [ 7 ] [ 8 ]. (1831) 2 BAD 232 [ 9 ] [ 12 ]. (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463 [ 13 ] [ 14 ]. (1955) 3 WLR 48 (CA) [ 15 ] [ 16 ]. (1863) 11 CB NS 869 [ 17 ] [ 20 ]. (1876) LR 1 QBD 410 [ 21 ] [ 22 ]. (1876) LR 1 QBD 183 [ 23 ] [ 24 ]. (1856) 5 HL CAS 673 [ 25 ] [ 26 ]. (1939) 3 ALL ER 56. Introduction to Business Law (Lucy Jones) Part 2, Chapter 7. Pg. 211 [ 27 ] [ 28 ]. (1919) 2 KB 571 [ 29 ] [ 34 ]. (1951) 1 KB 805