The main issue in this case is to determine whether Frank is obliged to sell the car to John or not.
The subject matter of the case is based on the rules regarding offer and counter offer. According to the common law relating to the Contract Act, a contract will be legally valid when certain offer have been made and the conditions of the offer has been accepted. Considering this essentials, a contract has been treated as the meeting of mind. It has been stated that the terms and conditions of the offer is regarded to be accepted when the party accepts all the terms of the offer. He should be definite in nature and is not allowed to make any counter offer as against the terms of the contract. According to the Australian Contract law, a contract can be of two types such as bilateral contract and unilateral contract. In a bilateral contract, certain considerations are there between the parties for the formation of the contract. On the other hand, where certain terms of the contract seems undesirable to the parties, they can make certain counter-offer to the offeror (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2016). It is a proposal to make certain bargain to the offeror to come into an effective conclusion. It allows the parties to repudiate the previous offer and make the contract on certain negotiable terms. The principle of counteroffer has been established in the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. In this case, it has been observed that after a counter offer has been accepted, the terms of the previous offer will be terminated or destroyed. However, there is no obligation that the parties have to accept the terms of the counter offer and therefore, it can be stated that the terms of the counter offers are conditional. The acceptance of the counter offer is on the discretionary power of the offeror. Further, in case the terms of the counter offer has not been accepted by the previous offeror, he cannot accept the similar terms in subsequent event. In that case, a new counter offer is required to be made (O’Sullivan and Hilliard 2016). It is a part of the negotiation process and therefore, there is no limit in the counter offer. Further, it has been observed in Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v McLean [1880] 5 QBD 346 that when a counter offer has been made against an offer, it does not mean that the offer has been rejected by the counter offeror. Lush J. has stated in this case that a counter offer is a negotiation process and the parties have all the rights either to accept or reject the terms of the counter offer. Further, in Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven 49 L.L. (CP) [316], it has been held that until the offeror has received the rejection, the offer could not be treated as revoked and such revocation should be made before the other party has accepted the offer.
In the present case, it has been observed that Frank has made an offer for selling off his car and certain consideration has been mentioned in that case. According to the case, four persons have come across the offer. Mark has make a counter offer in this regard and offered a price of $1950 and posted a cheque thereto. Further, Tom has also make a counter offer to buy the car for $1700 and it has been promised by Frank that his offer could be accepted if no better offer has been made to him. However, in the meanwhile, John has accepted the offered price of Frank and he sent an email to Frank. According to the observation made in Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v McLean, it can be stated that the terms of the counter offer is not mandatory and the parties have an option either to accept the terms of the counter offer. Further, according to the case of Byrne & Co. it can be stated that the offeror has not rejected the price value of the previous offer and therefore, it can be stated that Frank has every option to accept any better offer in this regard. According to the facts of the case, John has accepted the offered price and Frank has every right to accept the offer of the John.
Conclusion:
It can therefore, be stated that Frank could sell the car to John.
The main issue of the case is to determine whether the company is liable to pay any additional money to Renee and other promised paybacks.
The subject matter of the present case is based on the rules of consideration. According to the provisions of the common law of contract, consideration is an essential part for the contract (except special contract). It generates certain bargaining process in the contract. In Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893, it has been held that the base of consideration should be reasonable and clear. The term consideration consists of certain promises where certain parties have made some promises to the promissor and the other party has accepted the promise. It has been made in the Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851 that the consideration should have certain values before the eyes of law. However, there are certain rules mentioned in the Contract law for consideration. According to the provisions of common law, if there is any existed contractual duty between the parties, any further promises could not form a part of the consideration (Fried 2015). This principle has been established in Stilk v Myrrick [1809] EWHC KB J58. However, there are certain exceptions to the rule. It has been provided in Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 that if the promissor has gone beyond his existing duties, the post consideration will be accepted. Similar mentality has been adopted by the court in case of Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EB 872. According to the case, if anyone has gone beyond his existing duties considered the promised amount, the other party is obliged to consider the party regarding the extra payment.
In this given case, it has been observed that the company under an employment contract has appointed Renee for three years contract and it has been stated that she will get certain amount of money for the job specified therein. After working for the company for certain period, she gets an offer from other company where certain pay scale increment has been made and while approaching before the managing authority of her company, it has been promised by them that her salary will be increased and she will also get certain payback from the company. However, it is to be stated that there was a pre-existing contract with the company and she has not approached to do any additional duty for the company. It is therefore, can be stated that the company is not liable to provide her any additional payment promised by the manager of the company. This principle has been established in the case of Currie v Misa. However, it is clear from the case that Renee was in sheer need of the promised payment that she is unable to get. Further, according to the manager of the company, she was an efficient employee for the company and therefore, he has promised her to pay extra money in the form of incremented payment and payback. Considering the statement made in the Hartley v Ponsonby, it can be stated that if an employee exceeds his duties as mentioned before on certain consideration given to him by his employer at that moment, the employer is liable to make the payment to him. This statement has been supported in the case of the Stilk v Myrrick. According to the facts of the case, it can be stated that Renee has worked efficiently for the company and make certain profits for the company. Further, the company could face loss if she resigned from the post. However, she could not do that as she was under a pre-existing contract. According to the brief of the contract, Renee is under the obligation to invest her knowledge in the company and she has given her consent to that contract. Therefore, she is under the obligation to maintain the working mandate properly.
Conclusion:
Renee is therefore, advised that she could not sue the company for making her extra payment as promised because there was an existing contract between she and the company and according to the contract, she is liable to provide work to the company under that payment. In this case, she does not have to do any additional work or she does not go beyond her existing duties. Therefore, it can be stated that the exception to this rule could not be applied on her and the company is not liable to pay her additional payback.
References:
Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven 49 L.L. (CP) [316]
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893
Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EB 872
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
O’Sullivan, J. and Hilliard, J., 2016. The law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v McLean [1880] 5 QBD 346
Stilk v Myrrick [1809] EWHC KB J58
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851
Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download