Case of Mr b and Mr c jr

This case is between minor and adult and I can easily say that Mr C jr does not have a capacity to make a contract. But they agreed they would have a deal when Mr C jr become 18-year-old. Not to lose an opportunity to buy this rare book Mr C jr gave Mr B a £60 deposit to keep the book for him. Actually, it was a voidable contract by Mr C jr (does not have a capacity) that includes consideration – money from one party and a promise not to sell. According to the law, a thing of exchange can be money, physical objects, services and promised actions. They also had an agreement and intention. Mr C jr can cancel a treaty and has his money back because he is a minor, but Mr cannot leave the contract – capacity protects minors from being taken advantage of.

Case of Mr d, Mr a, Mr b and Miss e

Mr A promised to sell the book to Mr D and it can seem that they had an oral contract because they both have capacity, intention to create legal relation and agreement, and the ‘book’ as a thing of exchange. Then Mr A phones Mr B within 3 day as they agreed and tell him that he meets his original price. Mr B told that he has just sold it to Miss E for £1,275. It was not true but Mr B is the owner of the book and according to the law he can set any price he wants.

Case of Mr a, Professor f and Doctor g

When Mr A posted on Facebook that he will pay £1,110 to anyone who can bring him the book by the end of the week, it was an offer to the world at large, so it was a unilateral contract. Next day Professor F and Doctor G arrived to him with their books that mean they accepted the offer. They both can be paid, moreover, everyone till the end of the week can be paid because it was an offer to everyone, but it depends if Mr A needs more books or not, so he can refuse anyone.

Case of father of Mr c jr, Mr c and Mr b

Father of Mr C jr wants to sue both Mr C and Mr B for damages, but cannot sue them. As for Mr C, father of Mr C jr cannot do that because he is not privy to the contract. Privity lets sue and no one who is not within the contract can sue parties. As for Mr C jr, he cannot sue his son because they do not have intention – domestic relation.

Case of Mr a and Miss e

Mr A email Miss E and offering to sell the book for £1,200. She decided to reply by post agreeing to buy the book at asking price. But after posting the letter she changed her mind because she has already spent too much and emailed Mr A telling to ignore her letter. There is already a contract and she cannot leave it, because there is an offer that she accepted when she put her letter into post box (postal rule), they both have capacity an intention to create legal relation (commercial case) and obvious consideration – book for money.

2.2 Applying the law on terms in different contracts

According to law on terms I will explain if there is a contact, how the law applies, can someone sue in scenario 2.

Case of salesman from Tills Ltd - Mr h and Mr a

The salesman is trying to persuade Mr A to hire an electronic till with e-commerce and stock control facilities for three years. Mr A knows that this machine can become obsolete during this time and Mr H and Mr A had a verbal agreement that the company will update the machine every 12 months. Than Mr A signed a contract which does not include this term. When the till arrived he saw two envelopes – on one of them was written ‘Terms and Conditions’. He even did not open that and put in a cabinet. It was written inside that the company excludes liability for errors in stock records after 12 months. This is exclusion clause because all terms must be incorporated into the contract and the company is just trying to limit the liability and this condition must be in the contract. A good example of exclusion clause is Olley v Malborough court hotel; the guests can see the paper with warning only when they paid for the room.