UNIVERSITY TON 3 tev Vole Wa OF LONDON IL, AWS Formative Assessment Contract law Answer and Feedback Indicative Classification: Lower Second STUDENT ANSWER The objective of this question is to examine the contractual obligations of Adele and Bella, On the facts, it seems that Bella wants £125,000 for her Ferrari from Adele. Adele will have to pay Bella the amount if there is a valid contract between them. As per The Eurymedon, there will be a valid contract between them is there is an offer which has been accepted and which consideration has been provided without any vitiating factors. On the facts, Bella tells Adele that she wants to sell her Ferrari for about £100,000. Applying Treitel’s definition of an offer, Bella may have expressed a willingness to contract with Adele for her Ferrari since there is now a better model available and that she is happy to sell the Ferrari to Adele. Moreover, Bella's words are of imperative nature since she is certain that she wants to sell her Ferrari as per Storer v Manchester City Council. At this point, it may seem that Bella intended her statement to be an offer to Adele. However, it seems that the terms here are not certain since Bella only tells Adele that she wants to sell the Ferrari for about £100,000 and as per Scammel v Ouston, since such an important term is not Clarified, it may seem that Bella's statement is not an offer. With reference to Gibson v Manchester City Council, since Bella and Adele had not agreed upon the price of the Ferrari, the courts may decide that Bella’s statement is not an offer but an invitation to treat to Adele so that she, instead, can make an offer to Bella by suggesting a price for Bella's Ferrari. Furthermore, Bella may argue to say that she never intended for her statement to be binding once Adele accepted since they are sisters who met up for a drink in a casual context. If so, Bella's statement is not an offer but merely an invitation to treat to Adele. Therefore, despite Adele saying that she accepts Bella's offer, there is no offer from Bella and Adele's acceptance is not valid acceptance. On this basis, since Bella's statement is an invitation to treat which anticipates negotiations from Adele, Adele's email may constitute an offer to Bella for her Ferrari. However, Bella clearly rejects Adele's offer since she says she would not sell the car for £100,000. As such, Adele's offer to Bella for £100,000 for her Ferrari is terminated. On the facts, Bella emails Adele and tells Adele not to reply to her if she doesn’t want her Ferrari for £125,000. This time it seems that Bella's email is an offer since the price for her Ferrari is certain and there is a clear indication that she is willing to contract with Adele on this basis, and which can be seen from her use of words of precatory nature. All that is left is for Adele to accept Bella's offer for there to be a valid contract between them, However, on the facts, Adele stops reading Bella'semail after the first sentence. By virtue of Gibbons v Proctor, Adele cannot accept Bella's offer in ignorance of the offer since there can be no consensus ad idem between them if Adele has no idea that Bella wants £125,000 for the Ferrari. As per Entores Miles, Adele must read Bella's email and fully understand it before it can be said that Bella's offer is communicated which is required by Taylor v Laird. At this point, Bella's offer is not valid since Adele does not know of it and is not open for her to accept. Page 1 of 3Formative Assessment 2019 Bella may argue that since Adele did not reply, Adele had accepted her offer. However, as per Felthouse v Bindley, Adele's silence cannot constitute acceptance to Bella's offer. Following the approach stated in the obiter of Rust v Abbey Life, Bella may say that it is not against policy to ‘force’ contract on Adele since Adele is looking for a new sports car and she is willing to accept her offer. However, taking into consideration the large amount Adele has to pay without her knowing that she is bound to pay, the courts may find that it is against policy to allow Adele's silence to constitute acceptance and ‘force’ this contract on her. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Adele had accepted Bella's offer by conduct as per Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company. If so, Adele's silence is not valid acceptance to Bella's offer. Therefore, Adele need not pay Bella the £125,000 for the Ferrari. Ifatall the courts decide that Adele's silence does constitute acceptance, Adele may still relyon the general presumption in Balfour v Balfour to say that since Bella and her are sisters, there is no intention to create legal relations between them and therefore the agreement for £125,000 for the Ferrari is not legally binding but merely a domestic agreement. If so, Adele is not contractually bound to pay Bella for the Ferrari. However, Bella may rely on Merritt v Merritt to rebut the general presumption and say that since she said she is willing to sell Adele her Ferrari ‘on a business basis, they were ‘bargaining keenly’ and did not rely on ‘honourable understandings’ in this agreement. Furthermore, Bella may point out that the price for her Ferraris certain which further supports her rebuttal as supported by Salmon U in Jones v Padavatton. Drawing an analogy from Snelling v Snelling, since the agreement was made in a business context, Bella may be successful in rebutting the presumption and the contract between her and Adele will be valid and binding, If so, Adele is bound to pay Bella £125,000 for her Ferrari. Alternatively, Adele accepts Bella's offer for £125,000 for her Ferrari but on the facts, Bella now refuses to deliver her Ferrari to Adele. Since there is a valid offer and acceptance between Adele and Bella, there is now a valid and binding contract between them. If Adele had transferred the £125,000 to Bella following her decision to purchase, as per Professor Ewan McKendrick, Adele now possesses the badge of enforceability to enforce the contract between her and Bella. Applying DunlopPneumatic Tyre v Selfridge, Adele has bought Bella's promise to deliver the Ferrari to her and since she had already paid Bella, consideration has moved from Adele as per Tweedle v Atkinson. As such, Bella is bound to deliver her Ferrari to Adele. if Bella refuses to do so, Adele can sue Bella for the breach of contract for her non-performance. In conclusion, Adele need not pay Bella the £125,000 for her Ferrari if the courts find that her silence is not valid acceptance. Alternatively, if Adele agrees to purchase Bella's Ferrari and transfers the money to Bella to which Bella later refuses to deliver the Ferrari to her, Adele may sue Bella for the breach of contract. EXAMINER FEEDBACK COMMENTS Your introduction can just be a couple of lines to introduce the issue of agreement and ICLR. Are you sure that there is the necessary certainty in B's statement? You conclude that it is then you have a paragraph where you say it isn’t and in this paragraph you also consider the completely different topic of ICLR- which you need to deal with separately (with reference to cases). Why do you think that A’s email is an offer, what is your authority, and if rejected what is the nature of B's email? If the message is communicated is it reasonable for A not to read it? You consider the issue of silence as acceptance. You should consider the persuasive authority when silence can be acceptance, and apply this in the alternative. You then move back to ICLR, and the relevant presumptions and how to rebut that. Page 2 of 3Formative Assessment 2019 You then move to the alternative but here you conclude that there is acceptance, but when was there acceptance? That is not what the alternative facts say. So you need to be more logical in your structure, deal with ICLR as a totally separate topic to agreement. You need to explain clearly the consequences of each event to improve your answers. Page 3 of 3