Offer and Acceptance
In order to advise Dom, Shabina, rick and Sunil, it needs to be established that there is a legally enforceable agreement. A legally enforceable agreement, or a contract, can be broken down in to five elements; offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity to contract and intention to create legal relations. In this scenario there doesn't appear to be an issue with capacity to contract and intention to create legal relations, so we can assume that they are both satisfied. The issues concerning this scenario are the concept of an offer, acceptance and consideration.
When looking at the issues and assessing them, the objective view adopted in Smith v Hughes, rather than a subjective one. This unbiased view was recently adopted in RTS Flexible Systems Ltd. V Molkeri Alois Muller.
When Dom posts the advert in the magazine, it could be seen as an offer, defined as "an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as it is accepted by the the person to whom it s addressed". This is in the sense that Dom appears to be willing to sell the print to anyone consenting to his requested price. However it is more likely to be seen as an invitation to treat, which is a preliminary statement expressing a willingness to receive offers. Such was the view held in Partidge v Crittenden. This is differs from an offer since a proposal which amounts to offr is intended to result in contract if the other party accepts is and if it contains sufficiently definite terms to form a contract. The advert does not appear to satisfy wither of these elements.
Assuming the advert is an invitation to treat, it would follow that the first communication after it would logically constitute an offer, it could be said that Shabina's e-mail to Dom about the print is an offer. But according to Gibson v Manchester City Council, to constitute an offer the wording of the statement is a priority, and since it appears here that Shabina's
When looking at the issues and assessing them, the objective view adopted in Smith v Hughes, rather than a subjective one. This unbiased view was recently adopted in RTS Flexible Systems Ltd. V Molkeri Alois Muller.
When Dom posts the advert in the magazine, it could be seen as an offer, defined as "an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as it is accepted by the the person to whom it s addressed". This is in the sense that Dom appears to be willing to sell the print to anyone consenting to his requested price. However it is more likely to be seen as an invitation to treat, which is a preliminary statement expressing a willingness to receive offers. Such was the view held in Partidge v Crittenden. This is differs from an offer since a proposal which amounts to offr is intended to result in contract if the other party accepts is and if it contains sufficiently definite terms to form a contract. The advert does not appear to satisfy wither of these elements.
Assuming the advert is an invitation to treat, it would follow that the first communication after it would logically constitute an offer, it could be said that Shabina's e-mail to Dom about the print is an offer. But according to Gibson v Manchester City Council, to constitute an offer the wording of the statement is a priority, and since it appears here that Shabina's