Offer and Acceptance
Legal Issue: Is an agreement between two parties enforceable by law 1. OFFER:
Ben has contacted Ting in the subject matter of identifiable object GTX which Ting had inspected two days ago, he clearly mentioned terms and conditions i.e. $30,000 cash and showed an intention to be bound by these terms and conditions 1(Harvy v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg 41).
2. MERE INQUIRY:
Ting didn’t accept or reject Ben’s offer and inquired about the spare parts which is infact a mere inquiry rather than counter offer as Ting has not put forward any new terms to Ben’s offer in same subject matter and he still have the choice to accept or reject Ben’s offer 2(Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean, Graw 6th ed, pg55). 3. NEW OFFER:
Ben’s reply to Ting’s mere inquiry is another offer as he has offered to provide the lot including spare part at same price and same previous terms with a new offer of including spare parts as well in same subject matter which makes us believe its a new offer rather than a counteroffer and mere supply of information 1(Harvey v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg41). 4. MERE INQUIRY:
Ting’s immediate inquiry about is again mere inquiry and again its not a counter offer as Ting didn’t come up with any changed terms in same subject matter but just inquiring about the registration of car and still have the choice to accept or reject Ben’s offer 2(Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean, Graw 6th ed, pg55). 5. MERE SUPPLY OF INFORMATION:
Ben’s response to Ting’s inquiry is mere supply of information because Ben is not committing to anything here. Ben is mere supplying information with the intention for any further negotiations by Ting 1(Harvey v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg41).
1 Harvey v Facey [1893] AC552
2 Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean [1880] 5QBD 346 6. COUNTER OFFER:
Ting made a counter offer by showing his intentions to be bound within same subject matter to buy the GTX along with spare parts but with slightly different terms i.e. if Ben pays the
Ben has contacted Ting in the subject matter of identifiable object GTX which Ting had inspected two days ago, he clearly mentioned terms and conditions i.e. $30,000 cash and showed an intention to be bound by these terms and conditions 1(Harvy v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg 41).
2. MERE INQUIRY:
Ting didn’t accept or reject Ben’s offer and inquired about the spare parts which is infact a mere inquiry rather than counter offer as Ting has not put forward any new terms to Ben’s offer in same subject matter and he still have the choice to accept or reject Ben’s offer 2(Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean, Graw 6th ed, pg55). 3. NEW OFFER:
Ben’s reply to Ting’s mere inquiry is another offer as he has offered to provide the lot including spare part at same price and same previous terms with a new offer of including spare parts as well in same subject matter which makes us believe its a new offer rather than a counteroffer and mere supply of information 1(Harvey v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg41). 4. MERE INQUIRY:
Ting’s immediate inquiry about is again mere inquiry and again its not a counter offer as Ting didn’t come up with any changed terms in same subject matter but just inquiring about the registration of car and still have the choice to accept or reject Ben’s offer 2(Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean, Graw 6th ed, pg55). 5. MERE SUPPLY OF INFORMATION:
Ben’s response to Ting’s inquiry is mere supply of information because Ben is not committing to anything here. Ben is mere supplying information with the intention for any further negotiations by Ting 1(Harvey v Facey, Graw 6th ed, pg41).
1 Harvey v Facey [1893] AC552
2 Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean [1880] 5QBD 346 6. COUNTER OFFER:
Ting made a counter offer by showing his intentions to be bound within same subject matter to buy the GTX along with spare parts but with slightly different terms i.e. if Ben pays the
References: Stephen Graw 2008, An introduction to the law of contract, 6th ed, Thomson lawbook co.