Contract Law on Offer and Acceptance Case Study

Contract Law on Offer and Acceptance - Case break down ExampleHence Brenda succeeds on the both the counts against Andrew.Tuesday Morning Brenda replied by e mail that the price of 50 was a mistake instead of 500 and allow fored to Andrew the car at a discounted price of 450.and kept the house open till 12.00 p.m on Friday. and Andrew replied that he would consider the new reach out though expressing annoyance at Brendas mistake. Brenda had corrected the price on the website before receipt of Andrews offer.An offer is made when one person signifies to other his willingness to do or not to do a certain act with an intention that it shall be masking on the offeror if accepted by the person to whom the offer is made. The latter is called offeree1 The offerors signifiying act called reflexion of willingness may be by means of a letter, newspaper, websites, e mail and also by clear by which an offeror may be genuinely offering or just displaying an act what is cognise as invitati on to treat As such goods advertised are only invitation to treat. 2 They are of unilateral nature i.e. open to the whole world to accept such as offer for rewards etc. 3 In Partridge v Crittenden 1968, appellant Patridge had been convicted for sale of banned variety of bird punishable infra Protection of Birds Act 1954 by inserting a classified advertisement in a journal without mentioning the lecture offer for sale In the appeal it was held to be an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale and assent was set aside. On the other hand in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893, an exception was made because the offeror meant business by depositing a certain sum of money as a reward for any one contracting influenza inspite of using medicine. So they could not manage liability stating their offer was an invitation to treat.Question arises website advertisements are offers or invitations to treat, relevant the instant case of Andrew v Brenda. .An offer is a set of conditions contemplating acceptance and capable of being accepted. Thus in Thomson v James (1855) 18 D 1, Lord President MacNeill said, an offer is nothing until it is communicated (at p.10). This is because an offer is not capable of acceptance until it has been communicated to the offeree 4 It is important to be able to differentiate between theseinvitations to treat and true offers, as acceptance of an offer creates a concluded contract whereas acceptance of an invitation to treat is merely an offer. To assist in the identification of such invitations the legality has developed presumptions as