Problem question in contract law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Problem question in contract law - Essay exercising14). The acceptance of an offer results in a valid contract. The offeree makes the acceptance in response to the offer do by the offeror. Acceptance must be unqualified, and unambiguous (Barry, 1992, p. 14). The offer made by the offeror to the offeree has to be accepted by the latter, if a binding contract is to ensue. The offeror has the choice of specifying the manner in which the offeree has legislate acceptance of the offer. This makes it incumbent upon the offeree to communicate acceptance without any deviation (Kelly, et al., 2011, p. 234). As such, in certain contracts, iodine of the parties promises to perform some action, if the other fellowship does some specific act, even though the other party does not promise to perform that act. Such contracts are termed as unilateral contracts. As such, acceptance whitethorn be construed from conduct and there is no necessity for it to be communicated (Marson, 2010, p. 16). The r eadiness to accept offers or to degrade into negotiations wee-wees an invitation to get over. The main issues to be considered for solving the problem are Whether there is a valid contract mingled with Julia and OBrien. Whether the telephonic acceptance by OBrien concludes a contract between Parsons and OBrien. ... This enrage Julia, who left the shop. An offer must be unambiguous and can be express or implied. The give away of goods in a shop does not constitute an offer. It is merely, an invitation to treat. The offer comes into being when the customer selects some goods and expresses his willingness to procure them (Barry, 1992, p. 14). Thus, it is the customer who makes the offer, in such instances. In Fisher v Bell, it was held that the display of items with a price cover in shop windows was an invitation to treat (Young, 2010, p. 13). In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the defendants were the producers of a medicinal proceeds called the carbolic smoke ball. Thi s company gave an advertisement in the local newspapers, wherein it promised a reward of ?100 to anyone who contacted influenza or any other disease resulting from catching a cold, after having used their product. It also prescribed the acid of the carbolic ball to be used, in its advertisement. The company also declared that one ball would last a family for several months (OSullivan & Hilliard, 2010, p. 15). The plaintiff Mrs. Carlill bought a smoke ball duly believing the contents of the advertisement, and used the care for as directed by the company. However, she was infected by influenza, despite using the smoke ball for the compulsory period and in the prescribed manner (OSullivan & Hilliard, 2010, p. 16). The Court held that the newspaper advertisement, in this case constituted an offer. In addition, it was held in Grainger Son v Gough that the circulation of a catalogue by a seller of goods does not constitute an offer and that it was merely an invitation to treat. This re iterated in Fisher v Bell, wherein the display of goods in a shop window, was deemed an invitation to treat and not