Question Essay1500w, Help,pls?

[roseuk]

thanks a lot, i can deal with it now.it's very useful indeed

[Smita]

According to the conditions for valid acceptance – acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the offerer should be clear and unambiguous.

In the case of B, although B has accepted the offer but due to telephone stopped working, the message has not properly communicated to the A. So, it is not valid acceptance. In this case A is not liable to sell the car to B.

According the case study of Felthouse V Bindley (1862), court has held that the communication of acceptance must be made to the offerer himself or to his agent.

In the case of C, although C has accepted the offer subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. But the answering machine cannot be considered as offerer himself or his agent. C has not initiated any action to check the service history and current MOT of the car in the two months. Hence it is not valid acceptance and A is not liable to sell the car to C.

According to the case study of Harris V Nickerson, court has given the decision that an advertisement was only an “invitation to treat” and not an offer itself.

After two months J has shown his interest toward A’s advertisement to sell his car. Within that period the claimant can change his mind. Since there was no offer, there could not be any acceptance. Hence there was no contract between J and A. So, A is not liable to sell his car to J

[roseuk]

thanks you a lot...