Issue My advice to Leila would bebased on the issue at hand. The issue is whether the contract between Leila andJulie is valid, and if it is legally binding.
Whether Julie can bring anyactions against Leila for not rewarding for returning the missing gold locketand chain. Premise A contract involves certainbasic elements such as offer, acceptance, consideration, an intention to createlegal relations and lack of vitiating factors. An offer is also an intention toenter legal relationship with another party and in this case, the party actingon the advertisement by performing the act of findingthe lost gold chain, locket and following the terms stated issaid to have accepted the offer who is Julie, the offeree. (Shenoy, TL.
G., & Ling, LW. 2003) As forLeila, she has made a Unilateral offer as it is a newspaper advertisement made publicor the whole world, and not to identifiable individuals. An offer is the willingness ofthe offeror to enter into legally binding contract with the offeree. (Shenoy, TL.
G., & Ling, LW. 2003) Interms either implied or expressed by either party to indicate that the contractwill be binding to the offeror as soon as acceptance is conveyed by the offereePreston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982) 2 MLJ 22.An acceptance of an offer maybe express (orally or in writing) or implied by conduct.
(Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW. 2003) However,an acceptance need not be communicated to or received by the offeror in 3situations such as the postal or mailbox rule, silence and waiver ofcommunication. For the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball (1893) 1 QB 256,waiver can be described as when the offeror has omitted with the requirement ofcommunication of acceptance. Consideration is necessary tocreate a legally binding agreement. It is also benefits accruing one party forentering into a contract.
(Phang, A. (2004)Ina contract, one consideration is also exchanged for another considerationCurrie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153. Authority This principle of law has beeneffectively established in the case of Carlill v Carbolic (Ibid), whereCarbolic Smoke Ball company made an advertisement to the public whereby ifanyone buys the smoke ball and gets flu after using it correctly, would get areward of £100. However as instructed, Mrs.Carlill still caught the flu after using the smoke ball. She wanted to claimthe £100 but the company refused topay as they claim that the advertisement was not an offer. In the court, Mrs.
Carlill was able to claim the £100 as the company has made a unilateral offerthrough advertisement. Therefore, inthis case Julie will be able to claim $50 as of reward from Leila, foraccepting her offer. Carlill v Carbolic (Ibid)In another case whereby therehas a legally binding agreement. Harbhajan Lal vs. Harcharan Lal (AIR 1924 A11. 539). In this case, Har BhajanLal created an advertisement through pamphlets stating whoever being able totrace his son and brings him back to his father, will get RS.
500. In which, theplaintiff saw the advertisement at a railway station, and saw Ram Kishen, realisinghe is the missing boy. He then brought him to the Railway Police Station, alsosent telegram to Har Bhajan Lal, asking for reward. Similarly, an acceptance hasbeen made by Julie after she had read the advertisement and finds the locketand chain on her way home. Thus, the contract between Leila and Julie has beenmade, resulting in a waiver of communication, without the need to inform orphone Leila. Harbhajan Lal v Harcharan Lal (Ibid).On the nextcase Gunthing v Lynn (1831) 2B & AD 232 whereby Lynn offers to buy ahorse if it was a lucky horse, for $5 more. However, it turns out to beotherwise.
In this case, the condition when Lynn offered to pay $5 more, it wastoo vague to create a binding contract between them. Therefore, similarly inLeila’s case, she did not state in her advertisement that anyone who finds it mustphone it before returning. Argument / claim Leila can argue that she hasexpressly stated her phone number on the advertisement, this would requireJulie to telephone before returning her locket and chain Gunthing v Lynn (Ibid).Moreover, Leila can argue that she puts up advertisement on newspaper is aunilateral offer whereby it is to the world at large. In the argument, unless Leila’sadvertisement is an invitation to treat, there will be no binding contractbetween them.
This happens when one party invites the other to make an offer tocreate a contract but, invitation to treat is not an offer. (Tabalujan, S B., Du Toit-Low, V., & Huan, L.
Y. J. 2015)Therefore,accepting an invitation to treat is just merely making an offer and this meansthere is no contract between them as she is only inviting to make an offer.This can allow Leila to refuse to pay Julie the reward. Counter-Argument / claim In this case,although Leila has stated her number in her advertisement, Julie can argue thatthe advertisement was not clear enough.
Leila should have stated on heradvertisement saying that Julie should call before returning. However, itclearly stated that there will be a reward of $50 for returning of locket andchain, regardless of returning to the address given or calling beforehand HarbhajanLal vs. Harcharan Lal (Ibid).
Leila still refuses to reward Julie even when she tried collecting herreward at 1 Titanic Drive and she told Julie she should have telephoned firstbefore collecting so that she would be able to claim her reward. However, byJulie returning the items to Leila, it has already become a contract thus, nophone calling was required and so, Julie will be able to claim her rewardbecause the terms were met. Conclusion Based on theargument presented, there is binding contract between Leila and Julie. Throughexecuted consideration, whereby an act done by one party, for exchange ofpromised made. (Tabalujan, S B.
, Du Toit-Low, V., &Huan, L. Y.
J. 2015) When it has been completed by the party, theconsideration will have said to be executed. As such, Leila will have to fulfilto Julie’s consideration as Julie found the lost item while on the way homeCurrie v Misa (Ibid) In addition, with the Contract Law, the offer by Leila hasbeen made to the world at large which Julie has accepted it. Moreover,this advertisement was made to the world at large and Leila would not know whowill take the offer, which means it is a unilateral offer and thus, anyone whofinds it and returns it is deemed as an acceptance of the offer. Question 1b) My answer wouldhave been different if it was an exchange done independently or any exchange orpromise, which would be known as past consideration. (Tabalujan, S B.
, DuToit-Low, V., & Huan, L. Y. J.
2015) In the following case R v Clarke(1927) 40 CLR 227, Clarke tried claiming the reward of $1000 after he hadprovided the information to which leads to the conviction of a murderer of 2policemen named Walsh and Pitman. However, Clarke was not able to claim anyreward because back in June when he was on trial, he gave the information, sohe would be able to clear his own name for the murder. At that point, Clarkewas not aware of reward and thus, there is no contract binded. With that, theconsideration that he has made was in the past.
Therefore, a consideration willnot be valid if a consideration was made in the past Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3QB 234. Adding on, if he does not know about the rewards, he will not beentitled for it. I will conclude that in Julie’s case, if she had not read theadvertisement, this would also mean that she will not be aware of the rewards.
Therefore, after Julie was then told about the reward by April after findingthe returning the locket and chain, it would not be a valid considerationbecause it was done in the past. With the nextcase, Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669, William McArdle left a house to his fivechildren in equal shares. His wife, Ms McArdle did improvements to the housecosting £488 and even get her children to signdocuments, promising to repay Ms McArdle after everything has been evenlydistributed. After distributing evenly, the children refused to pay her. Inthis current situation, Ms McArdle had already performed the work before sheasked for payment. Thus, similarlyto R v Clarke (Ibid), her consideration was in the past, and it is not a goodconsideration which adds on to not a valid consideration Roscorla v Thomas(Ibid).
In addition, it was only a promise to pay, asthe promise to make payment came only after the consideration has performed,which resulted to transaction has not been completed. Question 2a) Issue The legal issuehere is Adam being the Plaintiff, Edwin being the Defendant. Plaintiff wants tobring legal actions to defendant over a possible breach of contract. The issueat hand is whether there is valid contract between the parties and if so wasthere a breach occurred. In this case, Edwin has already agreed to sell Adam a1925 Rolls Royce for $500,000 but refused to sell after someone offers to buyat a higher price, $700,000. Premise A contract hasrequirements for it to be legally binded.
Firstly, there must be a meeting ofminds (consensus ad idem), whereby both parties must show there are intentionsto create legal relations with each other. Secondly, there must beconsideration of both parties such as money paid for work done. Adding on,legal capacity to contract is one of the elements which make a contract. (Chandran, R. 2003) Breach of contract is a failure,performing any promise that forms part of the contract without any legalexcuse. (Chandran, R.
2003) Remedies for breach of contract includes injunctionwhich is a specific performance by the judge to the defendant as agreed betweenthe two parties. The other remedy for breach would be damages or monetarycompensation, quantum meruit. (Chandran, R. 2003) Authority The followingcase Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA the Mareva(1980) 1 All ER 213, Mareva Injunction could be a third remedy for Adam.
TheMareva Compania Naviera SA issued a writ to claim against International BulkcarriersSA the Mareva, the defendants for unpaid hire and damages for repudiation of acharterparty. However, in this case, the court extended the injunction durationto restrain the charterers from disposing the they had. In this remedy,Adam could seek for Mareva injunction from the court whereby it could freezeEdwin’s assets.
With this, Edwin will not be allowed to sell his vehicle to theArabian Sheik. Another remedyfor Adam would be the injunctions whereby it is a court order restraining aperson from doing a certain act. Injunction could be granted if the damageswould be an insufficient remedy. Therefore, Adam could ask for an injunctionfrom the court, so Edwin will not be able to sell the Rolls Royce 1925 to theArabian Sheik. As we can see from the case Warner Bros v Nelson (1936) 3 All ER160, Nelson entered into a contract with Warner Bros and during this period, sheis only allowed to only perform for them. Nelson then left the country to andhad another contract with another company.
Warner Bros then brought injunctionto restrain her from working for other company. Under the nextcase, Nutbrown v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159 Specific Performance is a remedywhen used by a court, for a party to do something specific. In this case, theclaimant entered into a contract with the defendant as he wants to purchase amachinery. However, the defendant breaches the contract and did not deliver themachineries purchased by the claimant thus, specific performance of thecontract was sought, and it was granted. Therefore, the defendant was forced tosell.Similarly, forEdwin, he has breached the contract under the facts of law whereby he refusesto sell even with the terms of contract, knowing that the Rolls Royce is veryrare in the market, he could sell the vintage car at a higher price.
In this remedy,Adam could seek for Mareva injunction from the court whereby it could freezeEdwin’s assets. With this, Edwin will not be allowed to sell his vehicle to theArabian Sheik. Argument / claim Adam can arguethat the time when he agreed to buy 1925 Rolls Royce from Edwin, they havealready entered into a contract.
In other words, if Edwin does not want to sellto Adam, he could be sued for the breach of contract. This is because accordingto the case Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 E&B 678, Hochster as theplaintiff who agrees to help De La Tour, the defendant as a courier. However,the defendant decides not to hire him as a courier. The plaintiff then sued himfor breach of contract and the court held the plaintiff. Counter-Argument / claim As acounter-claim, Edwin may argue that even though the Arabian Sheik offered$200,000 more to buy the Rolls Royce, Edwin did not sign the contract with himand this means they have not entered into a contract. Conclusion Based on thediscussion above, Adam could take legal actions against Edwin by seeking forinjunction or Mareva injunction whereby it could freeze or stop Edwin fromselling the vehicle.
In addition, Adam could also enforce specific performanceon Edwin to force him to comply with the terms and conditions. With these legalactions taken, Edwin will have to sell the Rolls Royce 1925 at the initiallyoffered price, $500,000. Question 2b) Yes, my advicewould be different if it was a late model Mercedes Benz. This is becausecomparing a late model Mercedes Benz and a vintage Rolls Royce, the price ofboth vehicles will be different. Moreover, Rolls Royce is harder to find in themarket due to its rarity.
For a remedy, both liquidated and unliquidateddamages are possible. My advice would be unliquidated damages as it is for aparty who suffered the loss after contract had been performed properly. Moreover,in this case, Edwin refuses to sell the Mercedes Benz is a breach of contractwhich Adam could suffer a loss and thus, money damages could be thecompensation.
References Chandran, R. (2003). Introduction to business law Singapore. Singapore: McGraw Hill Education 2003. Retrieved on 25thJanuary 2018. Phang, A. (2004). BasicPrinciples of Singapore Business Law.
Singapore: Thompson Learning Asia2004. Retrieved on 25thJanuary 2018. Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW.
(2013). Principles of Singapore Business Law. Singapore:Singapore Management University 2013. Retrieved on 25th January2018. Tabalujan, S B., Du Toit-Low, V.
, & Huan, L. Y.J. (2015). Singapore Business Law.
Singapore: Thompson Information 1996.Retrieved on 25th January 2018.
