In advising Benitez Computers LTD we must consider whether the facsimile mould they despatch let on to a number of their customers was an hold come give away of the closet or and invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is where a fellowship such as Benitez Computer LTD be non willing to implement the terms of their expect notwithstanding however seeking toinitiate negotiations. As in the moorage issue of Partridge and Crittenden itwas decided that if the advertisement such as the autotype move out was aninvitation to treat and not an drub to grapple accordingly(prenominal) no bundle would need tobe carried out. On the opposite hand the autotype could appear to be an crack cocaine whichis the willingness to be bound by the terms of the each(prenominal)ow for should the qualifyingbe accepted. The autotype sent out could be considered a uni new-maderal contract. This is where a party such as Benitez Computers makes a ensureal promiseand it is up to some other party e.g. Mr Torres or Mr Gerrard to choose whetherthey aspiration to enter into that contract as in the case of Carlill and CarbolicSmoke B wholly Comp each. In this case, the woo of appeal decided that MrsCarlill performed the condition in the offer and because the comp any(prenominal) wasunder obligation to pay her. Mr Gerrard because teleph aced Benitez Computers and go forth a voice mail messagewhere he would buy all the computers for £cl instead of the authorized priceof £200. If the original facsimile sent out by Benitez was an offer then the retort telecommunicate by Mr Gerrard is a respond offer which is where an offer has been madeand one party, in this case Mr Gerrard, is not happy with all the termssuch as the price and therefore wishes to carry on to lower the price to£150. However if the original telefax was not an offer then Mr Gerrard was merelyasking for a supply of information which is not deemed to be lawful offer asin the case study of Har vey and Facey where they were merely enquiri! ng aboutinformation and no form-only(prenominal) bid was made. It appears that Mr Gerrard was interested in purchase the redundancy stockbecause he later sent out a letter corroborative that he wished to buy up to amaximum of 20 computers. It was ring mailed Monday but did not arrive untilWednesday. Mr Benitez replied saying that it was alike late and that thecomputers had been sold. The postal rule states that acceptance by post isvalid from the succession of posting as in the case of Adams and Lindsell wherethe motor bide decided that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter ofacceptance had been posted. All of this though is dependant on whether theoriginal fax sent out was in deed an offer and whether Mr Gerrard wasstating that he would buy twenty computers for £150 or the original statedprice of £200. When Mr Torres leftfield a voicemail saying that he was interested in successful £200worth of computers this was not listened to until 10am the following Mondayafter the deadline even though it had been recorded at 4pm on the deadlinedate. Believing that the original fax sent out was an offer, they have metall the terms stated. As Lord Denning stated that an offerer cannot denyreceipt of the acceptance if ?it is his own fault that he did not drag on it?,for example it was Benitez Computers fault that they did not check theiranswering railroad car. This means that if the fax to begin with sent out was anoffer then Benitez would be presumable to supply £200 worth of unneeded stock. In instalment I think that in their position with Mr Gerrard they do nothave any legal obligation because if the fax was an invitation to treatthan the retort of buying the surplus stock at £150 could be rejected byBenitez Computers. If earlier it was an offer sent out by BenitezComputers then the reply made by Mr Gerrard was a counter offer. A counteroffer is classed as a rejection of the original offer and the introductionof a new offer with new terms. In the case with Mr Torres if it was a uni! lateral contract, all the termsand conditions were met by Mr Torres and it was the fault of BenitezComputers that they did not listen to the answering machine before hand,therefore they would be liable to supply Mr Torres. Luckily for BenitezComputers they could run over in court using the Partridge and Crittenden thatthe fax sent out was merely an invitation to treat and not an offer andtherefore they are not liable to supply neither Mr Torres nor Mr Gerrardanything. bibliography1.Keenan. D, Riches, S. (2005). credit line law, seventh Edition, Longman. 2.Offer and Acceptance. (2007, Nov 10th). Available at: http://www.answers.com/topic/offer-and-acceptance?cat=biz-fin If you demand to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment