An offer” is a proposal accepted, a valid contract may exist. On the other hand, “acceptance” is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer (Barron, 1997, Fundamentals of Business Law, p 171-172). This will be discussed in relation to Carol, Jake, Bill, Mark and Peter. Firstly, Jake and Mark came up with the idea of making an advertisement in the The Sun newspaper on selling secondhand cars and other models at great bargains. It was an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is the inviting of people to make offers (Barron, 1997, Fundamentals of Business
Law, p 152). Advertisements are generally regarded as an invitation to treat; it is always possible for the advertiser to make it clear in the advertisement that they intend to be legally bound (Gibson & Fraser, 2012, Business Law, IPPP). It was illustrated in the case of Partridge v Christened whether “Was the advertisement in the newspaper an invitation to treat or an offer”? The High Court of England held that the advertisement was only an invitation to treat because nowhere was there any indication of an expression of intention to be bound.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
The advertisement made no reference to the number of birds Partridge had, or had for sale, so it could not constitute an offer. Carol. Secondly, Carol have made an offer to Jake that “Would you sell the BMW 3 series at $34,000? Please reply soon”. An offer is sometimes difficult to distinguish from an invitation to treat, as was illustrated in the case Harvey v Face where in fact the buyer, Harvey was the offer and the seller, Face, was the offered (Crossing & Murphy, 2009, How to Study Business Law, IPPP) .
Applying these result to these case, Carol, the buyer, is the offered and Jake, the seller, is the offer. An offer must contain an express or implied promise. Besides that, lapse of time can be apply because under implied time limits where no time limit is stipulated, the offer must still be accepted within a “reasonable time”(Gram, 2002, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, p 59). Once the reasonable time expires, the offer comes to an end.
While the plaintiff had no specified a time within which her offer had to be accepted it was implied that it had to be accepted within a reasonable time, Here, the pendant’s delay in accepting was unreasonable (especially given the increase in costs in the interim), the offer had therefore lased and the “acceptance” was too late. Therefore, Carol’s rejection by e-mail would be effective and there would be no contract. In this situation, the business would not be bound to buy the secondhand cars.
Business Law By Elementarily board displayed on the wind screen reads as $ 35,000. A mere display of goods for sale marked prices is generally regarded as an invitation to treat (Gram, 2002, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, p 40). Lord Herschel has exposed the inconvenience of a contrary interpretation: The transmission of such a price list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity.
If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. Next, Mark tells Bill that “l will give you a special price $30,000” which will be available for two days only. It is an option because option is a collateral contract, which binds one party to keep the offer open for a specified period.
Besides that, revocation is the withdrawal of an earlier made offer. The communication to the offered is Bill. It is done by James Brother. Revocation may be by some other reliable source, other than the offer. The acceptance was invalid. The offer need not give notice of revocation personally for it to be effective. If the offered becomes aware of it from a reliable source, that will suffice. Here, the offer had been validly revoked before acceptance because Dickinson had received notice of it, albeit from someone other than the offer.
In my opinion, Bill should pay or send the $ 1000 deposit, intended to be bound immediately with Mark, therefore the first limb of Masters v Cameron could be successfully applied. Peter. Peter walks into the showroom and sets his eyes on a Blue Haunted, price at $40,000 which Jake have been ended the 5% discount. This revocation was done through many website. In this situation, Peter can argue by using unilateral contract. Unilateral contract which serve a useful role in catering for reward cases and the like in which the offered is at no stage bound to perform (Gibson & Fraser, 2012, Business Law, p 306).
Caracal’s case which has already been discussed is the classic statement on unilateral contract (Gram, 2002, An Introduction to the Law of Contract, p 32). Peter can also argue by using cases; “Christened charged Partridge under the Protection of Bird Act 1954 (I-J). On appeal from Magistrates court, the question rose if the advertisement was an invitation to treat or an offer for sale. Therefore, advertisement is known as offer and act is known as acceptance. (1008 words) Partnership is the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.
This can be broken up into three elements which are carrying on a business, carrying on a business in common and carrying on a business with a view to making a profit and all must be present. Mainly, carrying on a business is an active occupation or profession continuously carried on (Gibson & Fraser, 012, Business Law, p 720). In the case of Smith v Anderson Brett LLC said; “The association formed for doing one particular act which is never to be repeated. That series of acts is to be a series of acts which constitute a business. Therefore, a partnership can never be entered into a single venture. It was clearly referred to by Dawson J in his Judgment in United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pity Leathered he said; “A single adventure under our law may or may not, depending upon its scope, amount to the carrying on of a business… Whilst the phrase ‘carrying on a business’ notations an element of continuity or repetition in contrast with an isolated transaction which is not to be repeated the decision of this Court in Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pity Ltd v Volume Sales upon continuity may not be heavy. Besides that, following need to be examined in determining if a Partnership exists under common law rules. Firstly, there was an intention to form a partnership by the parties because Mark approaches Jake to work as “partners” in his business but they did not satisfy the definition of a partnership in the Partnership Act (Gram, 001, An Outline of the Law of Partnership, p 20). Secondly, there is a sharing a profit and losses without an agency relationship because “Jake had thought about this business deal with Mark as a one off venture”.
Thirdly, there is a voice in the management of the business. For example “Mark approached Jake to work with him as “partners”, due to Sake’s good sales skills. The Partnership Act(s) provide Rules that must also be satisfied for a Partnership to exist. In rule 1, common ownership of property, “Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, Joint property, or part ownership does not of itself create a partnership as to anything so held or owned, whether the tenants or owners do or do not share any profits made by the use thereof.
Rule 2, sharing of gross return, therefore, Jake and Mark were sold only two cars which unable to cover the full cost of the loan. In Rule 3, sharing of profits, therefore, Mark need to pay his share which is 30% of the loan to the bank in that evening. Conversely, parties may call themselves a partnership, but in the eyes of the law they may be something else (Gibson & Fraser, 2012, Business Law, p 722). As Mark approaches Jake to work with him as “partners”. This section partners are Agent for the other partners in matters pertaining to the business of the partnership.
Ostensible authority is also known as Apparent authority must establish such as the partner was acting within a scope of business of the firm, the transaction was carried out in the usual way, the 3rd party knew or reasonably believed that the Partner was a partner and the 3rd Party was unaware that the Partner lacked authority. (510 words) Bibliography Barron, M. L. , 1997. Fundamentals Of Business Law. ND deed. Sydney: McGraw- Hill Book Company. Bond, H. J. & Kay, P. , 1995. Business Law. 2nd deed. London: s. N.