Task 1
Karabo v Simbere
The main issue of this scenario is whether a contract had been formed between the two parties.
The English law of contract explains a contract as a legally binding or valid agreement between two or more parties with the purpose of creating a commitment. Formation of a valid contract must contain the elements; offer and agreement, consideration and Intention. An offer is a definite statement of willingness to be bound on specified terms. Acceptance can be defined as approving to all the terms of an offer (CIMA, 2015). Offer and acceptance should be able to bind the parties, for the two minds to meet also known as consensus ad idem (Merwe, 2003). If the two minds are unable to meet, then it means that the offer will …show more content…
This is the price she wanted to sell her house at and she did not recommend or expect any further negotiations which in turn regards this as an offer. This relates to the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893). The facts of the case were that the medicinal ‘smoke ball’ manufacturers advertised in a newspaper that if one used the ball properly and still contracted influenza, they would be paid a £100 reward. Mrs Carlill used the ball as directed, caught influenza and sued the company. It was held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert incorporated an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. Simbere terminated the offer made by Karabo by making a counter offer of buying the house at P450, 000.00. Karabo refused the counter offer thus terminating the offer but later on went to Simbere to accept his counter offer. Looking at the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840), Wrench the defendant offered to sell a farm to the claimant being Hyde at £1000. The claimant rejected and offered £950 instead which the defendant refused. The claimant later on agreed to the first offer but the defendant refused and the claimant brought an action for specific performance. It was held that the defendant was not contractually bound to the claimant as the …show more content…
This was founded by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) which was then decided that it’s principles would be used in future cases that have the same facts. The facts of the case were that Mrs Donoghue being the claimant, went to a café with a friend. The friend bought a bottle of ginger and offered it to the claimant of which she accepted. Only after drinking half of the bottle she found out that the drink had remains of a decomposed snail of which made her suffer health problems. She sued the manufacturer Stevenson as she felt they were liable for negligence. It was held that the manufacturer owed the claimant duty of care and ever since, it was advised that all cases of the same matters should be assessed using this case. If a claimant wants the court to believe that indeed the defendant was negligent, he needs to prove that the defendant owed him duty of care that is the question of whether the defendant had knowledge. If that is proved, then the claimant should prove that the defendant was in breach of that duty and that the breach of duty caused damage. Let us take for instance the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990). Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which misstated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1. 3M when the fact of the matter was that it had made a loss of over £400,000. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts. It was held
Karabo v Simbere
The main issue of this scenario is whether a contract had been formed between the two parties.
The English law of contract explains a contract as a legally binding or valid agreement between two or more parties with the purpose of creating a commitment. Formation of a valid contract must contain the elements; offer and agreement, consideration and Intention. An offer is a definite statement of willingness to be bound on specified terms. Acceptance can be defined as approving to all the terms of an offer (CIMA, 2015). Offer and acceptance should be able to bind the parties, for the two minds to meet also known as consensus ad idem (Merwe, 2003). If the two minds are unable to meet, then it means that the offer will …show more content…
This is the price she wanted to sell her house at and she did not recommend or expect any further negotiations which in turn regards this as an offer. This relates to the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893). The facts of the case were that the medicinal ‘smoke ball’ manufacturers advertised in a newspaper that if one used the ball properly and still contracted influenza, they would be paid a £100 reward. Mrs Carlill used the ball as directed, caught influenza and sued the company. It was held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert incorporated an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. Simbere terminated the offer made by Karabo by making a counter offer of buying the house at P450, 000.00. Karabo refused the counter offer thus terminating the offer but later on went to Simbere to accept his counter offer. Looking at the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840), Wrench the defendant offered to sell a farm to the claimant being Hyde at £1000. The claimant rejected and offered £950 instead which the defendant refused. The claimant later on agreed to the first offer but the defendant refused and the claimant brought an action for specific performance. It was held that the defendant was not contractually bound to the claimant as the …show more content…
This was founded by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) which was then decided that it’s principles would be used in future cases that have the same facts. The facts of the case were that Mrs Donoghue being the claimant, went to a café with a friend. The friend bought a bottle of ginger and offered it to the claimant of which she accepted. Only after drinking half of the bottle she found out that the drink had remains of a decomposed snail of which made her suffer health problems. She sued the manufacturer Stevenson as she felt they were liable for negligence. It was held that the manufacturer owed the claimant duty of care and ever since, it was advised that all cases of the same matters should be assessed using this case. If a claimant wants the court to believe that indeed the defendant was negligent, he needs to prove that the defendant owed him duty of care that is the question of whether the defendant had knowledge. If that is proved, then the claimant should prove that the defendant was in breach of that duty and that the breach of duty caused damage. Let us take for instance the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990). Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which misstated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1. 3M when the fact of the matter was that it had made a loss of over £400,000. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts. It was held