Question 1 (a)
Issue: To determine if there is binding contract between Leila and Julie
Leila advertises about her lost gold chain and locket in the local newspaper. Julie was on the way home when she found the jewelleries in the park, recalling that they were lost items from the advertisement she read. She went to Leila’s house to claim the reward. Leila denies rewarding Julie as she thinks that Julie should have called her first.
Relevant Law
In the eyes of the law, it is important to know that an invitation to treat has no legal value. In this case, Binding contract is an agreement between two or more parties which involves an intention to enter legal relations.
Offer and Acceptance
In this case, Leila, offeror, advertised the offer in …show more content…
The intention to create legal relations is the last factor be determined. This is present in this case as they both entered a contract which does not state that there any legal bounds to it or it being a domestic agreement.
Nature of advertisement
The advertisement was not an agreement offer to world at large but restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement. Julie accepted and acted according to Leila’s advertisement. In Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball(1893) constituted good consideration, because it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic. The company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound. The judgments of the court were as follows.
Waive of communications
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror which applies when he has waived the rights to receive communication. In Carlill v Carolic Smoke Ball Co(1893), the offeree performs the required act without informing the offeror in similar to Leila and Julie’s …show more content…
The case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) illustrates this principle. Similarly, Leila refused the reward. However, by Promissory Estoppel, Julie can proceed to equity court as it is an agreement without consideration intended to create legal relations, which to the knowledge of the promisor he will not be allowed to act inconsistently with it. Promissory Estoppel is protective against the word of the plaintiff but cannot be used to commence the suit. Thus, by promissory estoppel Julie can claim the
Issue: To determine if there is binding contract between Leila and Julie
Leila advertises about her lost gold chain and locket in the local newspaper. Julie was on the way home when she found the jewelleries in the park, recalling that they were lost items from the advertisement she read. She went to Leila’s house to claim the reward. Leila denies rewarding Julie as she thinks that Julie should have called her first.
Relevant Law
In the eyes of the law, it is important to know that an invitation to treat has no legal value. In this case, Binding contract is an agreement between two or more parties which involves an intention to enter legal relations.
Offer and Acceptance
In this case, Leila, offeror, advertised the offer in …show more content…
The intention to create legal relations is the last factor be determined. This is present in this case as they both entered a contract which does not state that there any legal bounds to it or it being a domestic agreement.
Nature of advertisement
The advertisement was not an agreement offer to world at large but restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement. Julie accepted and acted according to Leila’s advertisement. In Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball(1893) constituted good consideration, because it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic. The company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound. The judgments of the court were as follows.
Waive of communications
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror which applies when he has waived the rights to receive communication. In Carlill v Carolic Smoke Ball Co(1893), the offeree performs the required act without informing the offeror in similar to Leila and Julie’s …show more content…
The case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) illustrates this principle. Similarly, Leila refused the reward. However, by Promissory Estoppel, Julie can proceed to equity court as it is an agreement without consideration intended to create legal relations, which to the knowledge of the promisor he will not be allowed to act inconsistently with it. Promissory Estoppel is protective against the word of the plaintiff but cannot be used to commence the suit. Thus, by promissory estoppel Julie can claim the