Common Law Persuasive Essay Example

the use of 'could' implies a possibility of purchase, but falls short of a commitment to buy the car on 5th October. Therefore, Samantha's 'acceptance' cannot be legally recognized, and it is more accurate to say that she agreed to agree at a later time."

It can be argued that a bilateral contract is in place, which involves an exchange of promises. Specifically, Jacky promises to pay Samantha $65,000 and, in return, Samantha will sell her car to Jacky on October 5th. However, for a promise to be legally enforceable in a contract, it must be supported by consideration and an intention to create legal relations from both parties. The precedent set in Edwards v Skyways Ltd presumes that commercial promises have such intention, unless proven otherwise.

It is commonly accepted that buying a car is a commercial transaction, and therefore, it can be assumed that the parties involved intended to be legally bound by law. However, in this specific scenario, even though the parties had the intention of being legally bound, there is no consideration to support the promise and provide a basis for its enforcement. The significance of consideration in English contract law has been emphasized in Misa v Currie (1874-75), where Lush J. stated that it may consist of...

... whereby one party receives some form of advantage, such as a right, interest, profit or benefit, while the other party incurs some form of disadvantage, such as forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility.

While the Court does not mandate adequate consideration, it must be enough and hold value in legal terms. This indicates that consideration must possess some form of worth, regardless of its fairness. As

Jacky and Samantha did not suffer any legal harm after the promise made on October 2nd, which was to provide a deposit or any other benefits, there is inadequate consideration. However, Jacky could contend that he provided consideration on October 5th.

Consequently, the promise made by Samantha to Jacky on October 5th is unlikely to be legally enforced as consideration must match the supported promise. There was also no meeting of minds, therefore it is improbable that a contract was formed. Jacky was aware that Samantha had rejected his offer as she had communicated this through her relative, indicating she had no obligation to sell the car to him.

This brings up the issue of whether the message that Samantha received from her relative carries the same level of authority as if Samantha had directly spoken to Jacky. The case of Dickinson v Dodds12 established that an agent who holds the authority of one party can relay information to another on behalf of that party. In the case, Mr. Berry, acting as the seller's agent, informed potential buyer Dickinson that the seller (Dodds) had been offering or agreeing to sell the property to Allen. The Court concluded that communication had occurred through Mr. Berry.

Berry and the case highlighted the significance of mutual agreement between the offerer and offeree, as stated by James L. J who said, "...

For a contract to be formed, it is necessary for both parties to have the same understanding at the same time. This means that there must be an offer that continues until it is accepted. Without such a continuing offer, any acceptance is invalid.

The plaintiff was aware that the seller,

Dodds, had changed his mind and agreed to sell the property to Allan before attempting to accept the offer. As Samantha also changed her mind, there is no agreement between them and therefore no contract can be enforced. Whether a contract was formed on October 2nd depends on whether consideration was agreed upon for October 5th when Jacky paid $65,000 to Samantha for her car. If the court determines that the terms of the offer were certain and binding, Jacky may sue Samantha for breach of contract. However, it is improbable that a contract was formed.

In conclusion, the promise made on October 2, 2009, by Jacky and Samantha was only an agreement to enter into a future contract. Despite Jacky's intention to purchase Samantha's car on October 5 and his fulfillment of his promise, Samantha is not obligated to sell the car to him. Samantha communicated her refusal through an authoritative agent, indicating that there is no enforceable contract. Even if Jacky had given Samantha HK$5,000 on October 2, there might be sufficient consideration to support a contractual agreement under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s2(1)13, which defines a contract of sale of goods as an agreement in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for money consideration known as the price.

If Jacky offers $5,000 and Samantha accepts, a contract can be formed. This requires a money consideration from the buyer. But it will only be sufficient if Samantha agrees to the amount of HK$5,000. The presence of sufficient consideration is essential for the agreement to be supported in entirety.

Both Samantha and Jacky are affected by

the money in opposite ways, while the product has the opposite effect on their situations. These circumstances combine to create a legally binding contract, as there is now an offer and acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intention to establish legal relations.