Contract Law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Contract Law - Assignment ExampleThis case study presents the principle that sellers are not making a legitimate offer to customers, and that customers who bring goods to the counter are not making an acceptance, therefore a skip is not formed. This principle is further illustrated in the case of fisher v. Bell 1 QB 394. This case notes that the shopkeeper is not making an offer, but the customer who presents the item to the cashier is making an offer to buy. When the cashier takes the customers money, the cashier is, in effect, accepting the customers offer to buy the good. Partridge v. Crittenden 1 WLR 1204 is another case illustrating this point, and this court held that offering birds for sale cannot be a valid offer, as the tradesman might not actually own the birds, therefore he cannot be contractually bound to sell them. There also must be rough-cut assent to the contract, and this is known as the mirror image rule. This means that the acceptance must mirror the offer exac tly. If the acceptance deviates from the impairment of the offer, then the acceptance is deemed a counteroffer, in which case the original offeror is in the position to be the acceptee. Moreover, the agreement must be sure and enforceable, which means that the terms must be ascertainable by either consulting reasonable standards or have objective terms which can be enforced. For instance, in the case of Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston 1 AC 251, the court held that an agreement to buy a new van on hire purchase terms was as well as vague to be enforceable. ... If the acceptance deviates from the terms of the offer, then the acceptance is deemed a counteroffer, in which case the original offeror is in the position to be the acceptee (Restatement 2d Contracts 59a). Moreover, the agreement must be certain and enforceable, which means that the terms must be ascertainable by either consulting reasonable standards or have objective terms which can be enforced. For instance, in the case of Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston 1941 1 AC 251, the court held that an agreement to buy a new van on hire purchase terms was too vague to be enforceable. In this case, there was no way of measuring the hire purchase terms, as the contract did not indicate whether the terms were to be reasonable, nor did it list a price. The court must have a way to determine what the parties intended, and this goes to the element of certainty and enforce king. Contract law traditionally required privity of contract this means that the contract is only between the contractees, and any third party beneficiary to the contract would not have the capability of enforcing the contract. The Contracts Act 1999 changed this, as it specifically allows a third party to sue if the contract benefits the third party, and there is not a stipulation that the third party does not have the ability to enforce the contract (Contracts Act 1999). Therefore, a third party can sue to enforce the contract, which is an e volution from the common law rule regarding contract privity. effect of Part II of the Housing Grants, Reconstruction and Regeneration Act 1996 This part of the Housing Grants, Reconstruction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGRRA)