Law for Marketing
Legal advice to Bob regarding Jon’s Pay (Word Count 427)
Typically, the creation of contract involves three fundamental elements; the agreement, contractual intention, and consideration. Based on this scenario it is possible to say that Bob and Jon reached an agreement when he made an offer to Jon who in turn accepted it. Furthermore, the existence of a consideration made it look more contractual and therefore more binding. However, in spite of the agreement and consideration, there seems to be a deficiency with this contract which makes it less binding. Since the contractual intention is key in establishing legally binding agreement there is no evidence that Bob intended this agreement. The reverse is, however, true for Jon who seemed delighted and committed when making the agreement. In fact, the overall conversation made between Bob and Jon while in the pub that night was mainly social. Typically, most social arrangements do not tantamount to contracts since they are never intended to be legally binding. Therefore, in this case, Bob can essentially end the contract on a basis of vitiation most specifically misrepresentation.
Taking into account the circumstance of the contract it is safe to say that the contract is a misrepresentation. According to the Misrepresentation Act 1967, misrepresentation is defined as a false statement of law or fact that stimulates the representee to enter a contract. It is, however, clear in the same law that a statement regarding future intent does not amount to a misrepresentation except where the representor has no intentions of fulfilling the stated intent. Furthermore, in the court of appeal decision of Edgington V. Fitzmaurice in 1885, the court held that the contract was a subject of actionable misrepresentation this is in spite of the existence of a statement of future intent. The court was convinced that the defendant expressed no intentions of expanding the company with the money. The same seems to apply in the case of Bob and Jon. When Bob and Job conversed in the pub, there were no clear intentions from Bob that he was going to pay the £ 5 million. In fact, Bob all along had no intentions of paying the amount since to him the whole issue was just a backchat. Therefore, with the presence of a misrepresentation, the contract can be deemed voidable. Mainly, a voidable contract may continue to exist but can be annulled by the represented. In this case, therefore, Bob has the right to rescind the contract. It is clear that his rights of rescinding the contract are intact as he has not shown any interest or willingness of proceeding with the contract.
Legal Advice to Bob Regarding Sale of the Trainers (Word Count 422)
As mentioned above, the existence of an agreement between the parties is crucial in the process of creating a contract. However, in this case, it is evident that there was no agreement formed between Fiona and running fast. Despite the existence of a mispriced price tag on the website of running fast and Fiona managing to click on the items to add to her online basket, no agreement was reached between the two parties. In fact, the feedback of the automatic response reinforces on this fact by elaborating the circumstance under which the contract between the buyer and the seller can be legally bound. Since Fiona who is the buyer, in this case, did not receive the goods it is safe to say no contract was created. Furthermore, by clicking on the agreement with the terms and conditions of the business she indeed bound herself to a legally enforceable contract of the business. However, it is essential to note that the agreement in question does not pertain to the sale of shoes but rather the rules that apply to the transaction. Therefore, where the business states that they reserve the right to revoke any order at whatever point until delivery, the buyer is legally bound to comply with the condition since they accepted with terms and conditions. In this case, therefore, the business is, by all means, right to cancel the orders as they are legally protected.
However, it is possible that the rights of the business to make such cancellations would have been barred in case the third party had already acquired the rights in the goods or the business expressed willingness to proceed with the transaction. If the business would have transferred the rights of the goods to the buyer so that the buyer acquires the rights in the goods then rescission, in this case, would not be granted. In the court of Appeal decision of Car & Universal Finance Ltd and John David Balfour of 1964, it was clear where a third party had acquired the rights rescission would never be granted since it prejudices the buyer. Hence, the act of rescission can only occur where the third party or in this case the buyer has not received the goods. Moreover, in the case of Long V. Lloyd of 1958, it is clear that where a representee expresses a willingness to proceed with the contract then they lose their right to rescind. However, from this scenario, it is clear that none of this exists and therefore Bob can essentially cancel the orders.