Harvey and another plaintiff are the appellants.
Larchin M. Facey and his wife Adelaide Facey are the respondents.
Facey was going to sell his store to Kingston when Harvey telegraphed him a message and asked him if he wanted to sell B.H.P. He answered with the sentence “Lowest price for B.H.P. £900”. The appellants telegraphed “We agree to buy B.H.P. for £900”. They received no answer. The question to be asked is if the answer by Facey can constitute a binding offer for the sale of the property. Facey had the power and authority to bind his wife, because the property had been purchased with his money. Further Facey’s telegraphic form contained his signature. We can see that the telegram contained the names of the sender and receiver. That is sufficient to satisfy the statute and to see a binding agreement.
d) There was no explicit offer from Facey to sell the land for £900 to Harvey.
The first …show more content…
While Mathieson Gee thinks that the contract is just about the hire of equipment, Quigley thought that they would remove the silt at his house. However, we should have a look if, in the first place, there is a contract at all.
In order to have a conclusion of a contract, consensus in idem has to been reached subjectively or objectively. It means that what is important in a contract is if an objective person would have understood the parties to have reached a contract, if she was a witness. Further, the parties must have agreed on all the essential elements of the contract and the offer must mirror their acceptance. If no agreement can be made, the parties are still in a state of negotiation.
In this case, the parties argued about what the terms of the contract are. The defender thinks that the contract is about the removal of the deposit of a large pond on his property. So he approached the respondents, who confirmed to supply the mechanical plant for the excavation and
Larchin M. Facey and his wife Adelaide Facey are the respondents.
Facey was going to sell his store to Kingston when Harvey telegraphed him a message and asked him if he wanted to sell B.H.P. He answered with the sentence “Lowest price for B.H.P. £900”. The appellants telegraphed “We agree to buy B.H.P. for £900”. They received no answer. The question to be asked is if the answer by Facey can constitute a binding offer for the sale of the property. Facey had the power and authority to bind his wife, because the property had been purchased with his money. Further Facey’s telegraphic form contained his signature. We can see that the telegram contained the names of the sender and receiver. That is sufficient to satisfy the statute and to see a binding agreement.
d) There was no explicit offer from Facey to sell the land for £900 to Harvey.
The first …show more content…
While Mathieson Gee thinks that the contract is just about the hire of equipment, Quigley thought that they would remove the silt at his house. However, we should have a look if, in the first place, there is a contract at all.
In order to have a conclusion of a contract, consensus in idem has to been reached subjectively or objectively. It means that what is important in a contract is if an objective person would have understood the parties to have reached a contract, if she was a witness. Further, the parties must have agreed on all the essential elements of the contract and the offer must mirror their acceptance. If no agreement can be made, the parties are still in a state of negotiation.
In this case, the parties argued about what the terms of the contract are. The defender thinks that the contract is about the removal of the deposit of a large pond on his property. So he approached the respondents, who confirmed to supply the mechanical plant for the excavation and