Contract Q1

Front 1

Offer expression of willingness, on specified terms (Peel)

Acceptance offeree must agree to the terms of an offer (McKendrick)

Consideration act of forebearance or promise thereof (Dunlop v selfridge)

Intentionality not the sports of an idle hour never intended to have serious effect (Dalrymple v Dalrymple)

Back 1

Part 1 - Elements of a Contract

Front 2

In this case, there is no question as to whether there is consideration as Maisy is selling a piano and the buyer is expected to part with money, therefore there is forbearance or sacrifice on both sides.. likewise, there is a clear intention to create legal relations. Maisy has put this out in an advert, presumably at some expense, and they are not friends in any way before negotiations and therefore, cannot rebut the intentionality by saying this is just a mere social agreement.

Back 2

Part 2 - Consideration & Intentionality

Front 3

The first issue is if the advert placed by Maisy is an offer. As it is an advert, out to the world at large it would appear to be an invitation to treat, as in Partridge v Crittenden, and not a unilateral offer, which could be accepted by anyone and everyone (carlil v carbolic). These are the only options as it can't be a bilateral offer as there is no limiting language i.e. I will accept the first offer that comes, in this case it would still be an ITT but one Maisy may be bound to accept.

Back 3

Part 3 - The Advert

Front 4

In regards to Carla and Maisy: as the Advert is an invitation to treat, Carla is the one initiating an offer, she is offering the same amount as was advertised and has asked for time to consider. the issue here is whether Maisy accepted this offer by agreeing not to sell the painting. It is more likely that this would be seen as a preliminary negotiation, followed in Pitt v PHH, as there is a limit on the time frame and agreement not to sell. however, there is no binding on Maisy to accept the offer after the negotiation period.

Back 4

Part 4 - Carla

Front 5

In regards to Ricki and Maisy: Ricki has left a message, which Maisy never receives. In his message he says "if i do not hear" then he will count the piano as his. As per Felthouse v Bindley silence cannot constitute acceptance, and, therefore, it does not matter how the offer was communicated, there is no obligation on Maisy to accept or even reply to the offer. If the advert were seen as an offer, then there may be questions over whose responsibility the answering machine is (Brinkbon v Stahag Stahl) but even if this were acceptance it must be communicated. This means it is highly unlikely Ricki has a contract.

Back 5

Part 5 - Ricki

Front 6

In regards to Jack and Maisy: Jack has sent a letter to Maisy offering to buy the piano for more than Maisy originally advertised it for. Although this is different from the mode of offer stipulated in the advert, Maisy has accepted this form by writing in reply to accept the offer. As she has accepted the form of offer, her reply would most likely fall under the postal rule: as the offer was written and sent by post, a reply by post would be suitable. Therefore, regardless of whether the letter reached him, providing it was labelled correctly, it is binding acceptance and therefore Maisy and Jack have a contract.

Back 6

Part 6 - Jack

Front 7

As Jack and Maisy are the only ones with a binding contract, the piano is Jack's and Maisy offers no-one else any remedy. However, if it is found that Maisy, by promising not to sell, has acted in bad faith by agreeing to sell before the end of the negotiating period with Carla then Maisy may be liable for some damages of emanating from that breach, i.e. the interest on the loan secured in contemplation of buying the piano.

Back 7

Remedies