Completeness and Certainty

Q 3.1

In legal terms, acceptance means to agree or concede to the terms of a contractual offer (Garner 12 para 11 &12).

Q 3.2

1. Dexter cannot claim the reward because in giving up the reward in exchange for Katie accepting him, he offers a counter offer. Legally, a counter offer replaces the original contract (McKendrick).
2. From the legal definition of a binding contract, the offeree must be aware of the terms. Therefore, Dexter is not legally entitled to the reward because he does not know about it. Acting from reasons beside those that guarantee a reward constitutes a breach of contract (R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227).

Q 3.3

1. Petunia is the offeror of the 20% discount contract and her brother’s indoor cricket team members are the offerees. Under the contract, the said team members are limited to accede to the contract’s terms (Garner). Petunia is legally allowed to reject Tashi’s offer because it in breach of one term; payments are limited to cash.
2. Petunia’s contract of sale does not limit the use of her products by her clients. Petunia, as per her contract, is mandated to sell the pot to Fiona regardless of the intent Fiona has for the pot.
3. Blake offers a counter offer for which Petunia is legally allowed to accept or reject. By accepting Blake’s terms, a new contract would then be formed.

Q 3.4

1. Legally, Lionel (offeree) is not bound to the contract by Stewie (offeror). Lionel however proposes to either accept or change the terms. Hence, because Lionel has not accepted the offer, he (offeree) is not obligated to the contract (Law Teacher).
2. Acceptance of the contract by Lionel’s wife does not warrant Lionel’s obligation to the contract. The 2001 Act clearly defines the terms under which a contract is formed; a signature by both parties must be present and the information sent in accordance with the proposed contract must be by the offeree’s consent. Thus, the confirmation by Mrs. Lionel would be overlooked and no contract formed (Queensland).
3. Though Lionel physically collects the sandstone blocks, he has not effectively accepted the contract. The law requires that the offeree confirm through the electronic mail, provides physical; documents with their signature and confirms through the same electronic communication type (Queensland). Thus the Lionel is not obligated to the offer.

Q 3.5

1. Anja is bound to the contract, “the acceptance itself is completed as soon as it is posted,” (Law Teacher 1). Hence, Eve was obligated to receive the bike as soon as she confirmed.
2. Anja’s mail called for acceptance, hence it is a proposal. Confirmation is thereby limited to the offeree’s confirmation and not the offeror’s receiving of the confirmation.

Q 3.6

1. The offeree (Neil) chooses the use of electronic communication. The law requires that the recipient consents to such communication (Queensland). Hence, there is no agreement.
2. Sam specifically stating the mode of communication would then form an agreement under which he would be bound if Neil consented to his offer.

Q 3.7

1. Legal obligations to contract is determined by the certainty of parties to follow the contracts. Courts are therefore limited to evidence provided in regard to the evidence (Kenyon).
2. Yes, because a court cannot enforce contracts where they do not exist.
3. Yes. The courts however rely on other certain clauses in the contracts.

Q 3.8

Hillas formed a contractual agreement with Arcos to buy 22,000 units of timber with the possibility of another contract of 100,000 units in 1931 at a 5% discounted price. Hillas sued Arcos for cancelling the contract. From the court of appeal, the uncertainty in the conditional terms allowed Arcos to cancel the contract. The court could not enforce a non-existent contract (WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd).

Q 3.9

1. The contract is enforceable though is limited by the uncertain terms that the arbitrary will come up with. The unspecified terms further increase the number of terms to be bargained. Due to lack of specialization, the courts cannot be the arbitrary.
2. The contract is binding with respect to Jasmine’s price. Magda is therefore mandated to follow through the contract because the price quoted by Jasmine is the certain condition in the contract.
3. The certainty of the contract depends on the solicitor. His conditions will then guarantee the enforcement of the contract.

Q 3.10

1. The Masters v Cameron case fell into the civil type of cases because it involved default in the contracts involving money and property. The court ruled that the contract was binding of the two parties (Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353).
2. Parties may decide to formalise agreements later. The agreement is therefore binding such as was the Masters v Cameron case. Also, conditional agreements are binding to both parties. The Solicitor to Masters did not concede to the terms, hence the contract was cancelled.

Works Cited

Garner, Bryan A. A Dictionary of Miderne Legal Usage. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print.

Kenyon, Andrews Kurth. “A sure way to lose your case? Challenging contract terms for uncertainty.” Lexology 1.1 (2013): 1. Print. <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2a81495f-8ade-4a49-a98d-5d8d472993ae>.

Law Teacher. “Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35.” Law Teacher 1.1 (1862): 1. Print. <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/felthouse-v-bindley.php>.

Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353. No. CLR 353. High Court of Australia. 1953. Print. <http://netk.net.au/contract/masters.asp>.

McKendrick, Ewan. “8 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 197 (1988) .” Heinonline 8.1 (1988): 197. Print. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/oxfjls8&div=16&id=&page=>.

Queensland. “Electronic Transactions Act 2001.” Act 2001. 2013. Print. <https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2013-08-29/act-2001-042>.

R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227. No. 227. High Court of Australia. 1927. Print. <http://netk.net.au/Contract/RvClarke.asp>.

WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd. No. WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] UKHL 2. House of Lords. 1932. Print. <https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Hillas_and_Co._Ltd._v._Arcos_Ltd..html>.