CONTRACT LAW

Contract Law and Legal Advice

Contract Law and Legal Advice

Introduction

George is in a predicament. Three buyers were interested in the stamp he was selling and each potential buyer responded differently to his invitation to treat. Delia was the first to make an offer, followed by Perry. George eventually sold the stamp to Charles. Delia is threatening to sue George as per the violation of a contract. The body of this essay will consider George's case, law of acceptance and offer, and George's legal position.

Discussion

Contract Law

The premise of Contract Law is the need for making an offer and acceptance of the said offer, communicated via any medium between both parties and agreement of the terms. Contract Law ensures legal compliance as the violated party has the right to sue the violator of the contract (Collins, 2003, p.17).

The Law of Offer & Acceptance

For any legally binding Contract of Law, there must be an offer and an acceptance of that offer. The offer and acceptance legally binds both parties which is liable to the Contract Law in case of violation by either side.

To ascertain the legal implications or outcomes of a contract, we must also determine the actual intention of both parties to willingly enter the contract (O'Sullivan & Hilliard, 2012, p.12). The exchange between Charles and George reinforces this concept as George sold the stamp for a negotiated price. The actual intention of both the offeror and the offeree, therefore, was to enter into a contract. Consequently, to determine whether the law of offer and acceptance is applicable, the Court considers non-apparent and less obvious factors under ordinary circumstances. These include the critical difference between an actual offer and an invitation to treat, and meticulously inspecting the intent to produce legal relations. As mentioned before, George's advertisement is an invitation to treat thus; it is not an actual offer.

The Difference between an Offer and an Invitation to Treat

In Contract Law, it is an indispensable feat, and often challenging, to distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat. Through Contract Law, the intentions of both parties have to be identified in order to further any legal action. An invitation to treat is “an offer to make an offer”. It does, however, paint a rather vague image of the actual meaning of an invitation to treat. Therefore, an invitation to treat is always distinguishable from an actual offer by determining the actual intention. If both parties accept a proposition mutually with the intention of entering into a contract, then that is a valid offer. However, if one party offers a proposition, clearly with the intent of not entering into a contract if the other party accepts the proposition at the initial stage, it is an invitation to treat in Contract Law. Whereas an offer can be accepted or rejected, an invitation to treat cannot be accepted or rejected. In Partridge v. Crittenden, Partridge advertised for the sale of birds in a magazine. The Court held in favor of Partridge, as any goods advertised ...