Advise to Eddie of Legal Rights Against Oscar
In the given case the Eddie received a letter from Oscar regarding the purchase of the dresses of a unit of 1,500 summer dress at $15,000. The letter states that if Eddie is willing to buy the dress then must inform by 5 PM on a Friday. On Wednesday, Eddie wrote a letter to Oscar that states he is willing to buy the dresses if it is the entire payment can be divided into two months. Oscar did not reply to the letter. However, Oscar sold the dress to Laura on Thursday without providing proper information to the Eddie. Consequently, on Friday, Eddie sent a letter by accepting the obligation of Oscar for buying the dress. This letter was received by Oscar on Monday. In the reply of this letter, Oscar sent a letter to the Eddie which states that the dresses were not available now. Incidentally, the letter was not served properly and not received by Eddie. Gradually, Eddie finds the dresses were sold by Oscar from the clerk of the Oscar. After three months, Eddie saw a notice from the Oscar from regarding the dresses and reference for the jeans. Soon after, he wrote a letter to Oscar regarding the buying of the Jeans. The letter also states the reference of the dresses. Oscar did not reply to the letter of Eddie and also return the cheque that was attached by Eddie in the letter. Finally, this leads Eddie to claim of damages against Oscar for breach of contract for unable to supply the dresses and jeans. Therefore, the given case study will analyse the legal rights of the Eddie against Oscar.
According to the Law of Contract, a contract can be defined as an agreement between the competent parties that is bind by the regulation of the law. A contract may be written or orally or partially written and partly oral. The essential elements of the contracts are offers, acceptance and consideration (Kearns, p.30). Firstly, the offer has been made by the offeror to the offeree. It may have some specific time periods. Secondly, the offeree has to accept the offer without providing any counter-offers for the offer. It shall be remembered that the part payment of the consideration cannot fulfil the term of the acceptance of the offer (Kearns, p.39). Finally, the offer shall be accepted with providing of the appropriate consideration to the offeror. The person who has been making the offer can be termed as offeror and the person for whom the offer is provided can be termed as offeree.
There are two types of contract under the principle of the Law of Contracts such as Bilateral Contract and Unilateral Contract. A bilateral contract is an agreement when all the parties to the contract are under the obligation of the contract and bind by the regulation of law. A unilateral contract can bind one party by the obligation of the agreement (Kearns, p.31). The offers can also be addressed to the public and this type of contract can be termed as a unilateral contract.
The termination of an offer can be performed if the offer is not accepted on the specified terms. However, the offeror is not bound to provide the revocation of the offer if they had already learned from the third party or legal agent of the offeror. Moreover, the offer can be revoked if it is not accepted within the mentioned period. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880), the court held that the offeree must communicate about the process of revocation of the offers (Kearns, p.32). Therefore, Oscar had to provide information about the revocation of the offer. However, in the cases of Dickinson v Dodds (1896), the court states the plaintiff already knew that the defendant had sold the house to another person through his agent (Kearns, p.32). Therefore, the court dismissed the case. In the case of Stevenson Jacques & Co. v McLean (1880), the court held that acceptance unqualified if the there is any counter-offers (Kearns, p.34). Therefore, the acceptance of the offers shall be accepted without providing any counteroffer. Breach of the contract performed when parties to the contract do not perform the action according to the terms and condition of the contract. The breach of contract is a punishable crime under the principle of the Law of Contract and amount to a criminal breach of trust (Kearns, p.70).
In the present case, Oscar provides an offer to Eddie for buying the dresses at $15,000. He replied back by providing a counter offer. Therefore, Eddie is already unqualified to accept the offer of the Oscar under the general rule of Law of Contract. Moreover, Eddie has knowledge about the revocation of the offer from one of the assistants of Oscar. Therefore, the process of the communication was completed regarding the revocation of the offer. In the case of Routledge v Grant (1828), the offer can be revoked if it is not accepted with the timeframe of the offer (Kearns, p.32). Similarly, Eddie’s letter of acceptance was received by Oscar after the specified times. Hence, the offer of the Oscar was revoked in the course of the time frame. In the above-mentioned case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880), the court states that the process of the revocation shall be informed to the offeree (Kearns, p.32). However, under the principle of the Law of contract Eddie was provided information about the revocation of the offer. In the further claim of the jeans, Oscar did not communicate with Eddie. Therefore Eddie can claim against Oscar for breach of contract under the principle of Law of Contract. Moreover, Eddie had procured the knowledge about the revocation process for the offer of dress. Therefore, Eddie could not ask for damages for the dress that has not been provided to him. In the following case, Eddie can claim damages or compensation from Oscar as he does not breach any term and condition of the offer. Moreover, the offer of the jeans was made as a public offer, therefore, depending on that offer Eddie can claim against him.
It can be concluded from the above case study that Eddie does not procure any legal rights to claim from Oscar under the regulation of Law of Contract as Oscar did not breach any term and condition of the offers provided by him. The present report also provides an analysed the term of offeror and offeree. It also provides an analysis of the type of contract that has been done by Oscar in the case of the Jeans offer. The present case states the revocation process must be communicated to the offeree by the offeror or his lawful agent. Moreover, the offer shall accept by the offeree without providing any counter offer, otherwise, the offer will be nullified. Therefore, Eddie can claim that he had accepted the offer of Oscar as he provides a counter-offer to Oscar. Hence the acceptance opportunity of Eddie can be nullified.
In the given case Collins took his dinner suit and his wife’s silk dress to their regular dry cleaning shop that is the Soono Dry Cleaners. In the time of collecting both the dress, he was informed that his dinner suit had been missing and the silk dress had a stain that the dry cleaner was unable to remove. However, no explanation was provided about the stain in the dress. Under this circumstance, the one of the assistance of the shop claimed that he had handed the suit another customer who had lost his docket and identifies the suit as him from the rack of the dry cleaners shop. On this claim, Collins protested that he had never signed or read the docket. Hence the given case will analyse the legal rights of Collins for claiming compensation from the dry cleaner shop. It will also provide that obligation of Collins if he had read the docket. Moreover, he claimed that his wife has to face various mental stresses as the dress was gifted by her maternal home. Hence, Collins wants advice whether he can claim for damages.
According to Law of Contract, a commercial agreement precisely has a legal binding on both the parties in the agreement. If the parties claim that they could not understand the terms of the agreement, it shall be clear by the parties. According to the performance of the contract, it is mentioned that before, the delivery of the goods the bailor solely responsible under the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (Kearns, p.111). It has been said that part of the contract will be finished performance after the delivery of the goods. According to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the Seller or supplier is liable for creating the delivery perfectly. According to Sale of Goods Act 1923, every business posses some certain implied condition such as the sellers have the right to sell his goods, the buyer has the right s to enjoy and poses the goods and the goods are free to form any encumbrance charges (Kearns, p.109). These implied terms of the business have a legal binding on both seller and buyer or bailor and bailee. The promissory estoppels happen, when a person denied after performing the certain act (Kearns, p.40). A person cannot be denied in facing the consequence of his action under the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppels.
Advice for Collins to claim compensation
In the present case, Collins has the right to claim damages from the dry cleaner according to the principle of the Sale of Goods Act 1923. In the case Phillips v Brooks Ltd , the court the plaintiff cannot recover the goods because the defendant performs the action on good faith (Kearns, p.111). Similarly, Collins under the good faith provides the clothes to the Soono Dry Cleaners. Moreover, the shopkeeper fails to keep the promise to deliver the dresses perfectly under the principle of specific performance. The dry cleaners fails to keep the faith, hence, Collins has all right to sue the shopkeeper (Kearns, p.103). Under the principle of the Sale of Goods Act 1923, it has been claimed that bailor has all the responsibilities before the delivery of the goods. Therefore, the dry cleaner’s shopkeeper is solely responsible for delivering the goods perfectly.
Difference in Advice
Every business has some implied terms and condition in their commercial agreement that has bindings on both bailor and bailee. In the case of Rowland v Divall , the court lead that implied terms in the business posses binding on both seller and buyer or bailor and bailee (Kearns, p.109). Similar if the docket was noticed by Collins that states an exclusion of liabilities on the damage of the button and zipper of the dress. Then Collins cannot claims for the damages. However, the dockets do not imply anything such as and it was not noticeable by any person. Hence, Collins can claim for the damages performed by the shopkeeper.
Advice to Collins for his wife’s emotional distress occurring due to the action of dry cleaner
Collins can claim damages for the mental stress of his wife as it amounts to the breach of trust. It shall be remembered that the performance of the Collins was under the trust that creates an issue to the mental health of his wife. Moreover, due to the negligence of the shopkeeper, they have to hire dress from other. Hence this causes loss to them and provides a legal obligation to Collins to pursue damages from the shopkeeper. Moreover, the shopkeeper cannot deny facing the consequence of his action (Kearns, p.40). Hence Collins is liable to claims damages under the Doctrine of Estoppels.
It can be concluded from the case study that Collins is liable to claim damages from the Soono Dry Cleaners. The present study also provides that the implied terms of the business provide legal binding on both bailee and bailor. Moreover, the performance of the contract will be complete if the bailor delivers the goods of the bailee. A person has to face the consequence of his action under the doctrine of estoppels. However, Collins is liable to claim damages under the principle of the doctrine of estoppels.