1. Wendy v Hook
1.1 Issues
Wendy must prove there was an agreement, and the contract was certain.
1.2 Agreement
Was there an offer?
Firstly, it must be determined whether Hook extended an offer or an invitation to treat. The language used by Hook, “would you be interested”, is more akin to an invitation to treat than a firm offer. Hook could argue he was simply informing Wendy about the existence of a job vacancy. However, in contrast to Gibson, Hood did not invite an application but already set the terms. This implies Hook’s proposal was capable of acceptance or rejection as is. Furthermore, context should be considered. Wendy is a pastry chef, and Hook needed a pastry chef. A reasonable person in Wendy’s position would expect an offer was intended. As there is no indication of further planned negotiations, both parties …show more content…
Thus, there was agreement between the parties
2.3 Consideration
Original consideration
Wendy’s benefit was the renovations, which would increase the value of her apartment. Peter’s detriment was his legal obligation to complete the job. As Peter’s detriment was the price incurred for Wendy’s payment, there was consideration.
Did Peter provide consideration for the additional $5000?
Generally, a promise to perform an existing legal duty does not constitute sufficient consideration. However, there is the practical benefit exception which may be applicable. It is assumed Wendy was concerned Peter would not complete the renovations in time for her to take advantage of the “hot” market. Thus, Wendy obtained a practical benefit from early completion. There is no evidence of undue pressure from Peter. Furthermore, it is likely the practical benefit was worth more than any remedy, as it is doubtful Wendy had a cause of action against Peter. Peter suffered the practical detriment of having to begin Wendy’s renovations earlier, even though he was “fairly
1.1 Issues
Wendy must prove there was an agreement, and the contract was certain.
1.2 Agreement
Was there an offer?
Firstly, it must be determined whether Hook extended an offer or an invitation to treat. The language used by Hook, “would you be interested”, is more akin to an invitation to treat than a firm offer. Hook could argue he was simply informing Wendy about the existence of a job vacancy. However, in contrast to Gibson, Hood did not invite an application but already set the terms. This implies Hook’s proposal was capable of acceptance or rejection as is. Furthermore, context should be considered. Wendy is a pastry chef, and Hook needed a pastry chef. A reasonable person in Wendy’s position would expect an offer was intended. As there is no indication of further planned negotiations, both parties …show more content…
Thus, there was agreement between the parties
2.3 Consideration
Original consideration
Wendy’s benefit was the renovations, which would increase the value of her apartment. Peter’s detriment was his legal obligation to complete the job. As Peter’s detriment was the price incurred for Wendy’s payment, there was consideration.
Did Peter provide consideration for the additional $5000?
Generally, a promise to perform an existing legal duty does not constitute sufficient consideration. However, there is the practical benefit exception which may be applicable. It is assumed Wendy was concerned Peter would not complete the renovations in time for her to take advantage of the “hot” market. Thus, Wendy obtained a practical benefit from early completion. There is no evidence of undue pressure from Peter. Furthermore, it is likely the practical benefit was worth more than any remedy, as it is doubtful Wendy had a cause of action against Peter. Peter suffered the practical detriment of having to begin Wendy’s renovations earlier, even though he was “fairly