- Information
- AI Chat
Business law AS2 (Auto Recovered)
Business Law (LAW2474)
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Recommended for you
![[BL] Law case (Autosaved)](https://d20ohkaloyme4g.cloudfront.net/img/document_thumbnails/511b6499f17e0a507de7b04f49ffc7dc/thumb_300_388.png)
Related documents
Preview text
TO: Second hand Rose Pty Ltd
FROM: Buchanan & Co.
RE: Advice regarding case between Second hand Rose Pty Ltd and Ms Day
DATE: May 1st
Dear Ms Coco Rivers,
Thank you for reaching out to our firm, I can assure the highest of quality and professionalism when it comes to my firm.
Case between Second hand Rose and Ms day
Was a valid contract formed?
Was there intention?
In this case to identify if a valid bilateral simple contract was formed it must have several legal elements, it must be proven that there was an intention to create a legal relationship between the parties, this can be analysed by looking at the relationship between Second Hand Rose and Ms Day. To decipher if there were proper intentions a court will examine the relationship between the two parties, as neither party would be considered family or friends it is regarded as a commercial relationship meaning Second hand Rose and Ms Day did intend to create a legally binding relationship, in response one may argue that she did not intent to, however there is sufficient evidence objectively that a reasonable person would believe both parties did intend to create a legally binding relationship similar to Wakely v Ripley.
Was there Consideration?
There must also be consideration present, both parties must promise to give something of value to the other they do not have to be of equal value, but it must be clear and legal. Stefano offered to exchange allowing Ms Day to try on the dress in exchange for providing 1000 followers to Second Hand Rose Instagram account displaying the main rule of consideration was used, by exchanging something of value to either party. It also cannot be considered past consideration as consideration came into existence after the promise ( Roscorla vs Thomas).
Was there Mutal agreement?
There must also be a mutual agreement, including an expression of willingness to make a contract on certain terms and a clear acceptance of the offer, with the intention to make legal relations upon acceptance of the offer. Offeror Stefano made a clear unambiguous offer via email “we will send the dress for you to try on, if you can provide 1000 followers to our Instagram account” to which Ms day was fully aware of and accepted adhering to the Electronic Transactions ACT once Ms Days email of acceptance is sent the offer has been accepted, with no revocation or change occurring by the offeror following the mirror image rule thus producing a valid simple contract. If may be argued that it was not an actual offer but an invitation to treat, however rather than inviting Ms Day to make an offer to which an invitation to treat would stand, there are statements showing a desire to create a contract on certain terms and to be legally bound by those terms exhibiting clear intention from both sides.
Conclusion
A court will therefore likely rule that there was a valid formed due to all three main elements present.
Buchanan & Co.
References
Todd v Nichol
Wakely v Ripley
Roscorla vs Thomas
JJ Savage v Blakney
Van Den Esschert v Chappell
Oscar chess v Willaims
Routledge v McKay
Hailing v Eddy
Poussard v Speirs & Pond.
Business law AS2 (Auto Recovered)
Course: Business Law (LAW2474)
University: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
