Contract Law

 Contract Law

The question is concerned with Contract Law. It deals with the aspects of offer and acceptance. This theory becomes legally binding when the parties involved are of one mind. One party lays down the proposal, which he/she anticipates that the other party will accept the terms on offer. Once both parties are in agreement, it becomes legally binding. The question involves two scenarios. Both scenarios include Ada and place her in a difficult spot with her two clients: Kevin and Erick.

There was a legally binding contract between Erick and Ada concerning the purchase of the masks. Both parties laid out their conditions, which the other party accepted. Erick went on to fulfil his part of the agreement. He paid the money and sent her a picture of the transfer receipt and stated where he would like to collect the masks. At this point, the contract became binding as he had communicated his acceptance, as in the case of Entorres v Miles. He then waited for Ada to do her part. However, the delivery company informed Ada that they would deliver the masks in March instead of February, as earlier stated. Erick did not take this information too well because he already made plans regarding the masks. One can understand why he was not happy.

However, the delay in shipments was not Ada’s fault. The delivery company deserves the blame for not fulfilling their obligation. Ada was quick to inform Erick of the changes in place, showing that she is an honest businesswoman. Therefore, Erick should understand that the delay is not due to Ada’s liking.

Erick is entitled to terminate the order because the agreed time frame has elapsed. They had agreed that the masks would arrive in early February, and this was not going to happen. However, this would not be wise since creating a new order will result in more waiting time, and the goods may arrive at around the same time that had been stated by the shipping company.

Also, Erick is entitled to revoke his acceptance of the offer. Typically, such agreements are not subject to reversal after approval has taken place. However, this may not be the case in unilateral offers where acceptance requires full performance, as in the case of Errington v Errington Woods. Erick accepted the offer knowing that he would have the masks come early February. Unfortunately, the masks did not arrive at the expected time, and this made him very unhappy. This failure to deliver the masks indicates that there is a lack of full performance, giving him every right to revoke the agreement.

Also, Erick can propose a change in terms of the contract. He could ask for a reduction in the price of the masks as compensation for the inconvenience.  These changes would make the first contract null and avoid. The success of the second proposed contract depends on Ada’s response. Legally speaking, Ada did not commit any crime and, therefore, Erick cannot sue her in this case. They should settle the issue out of court to prevent further wastage of time. Erick could also decide to wait for the delivery company to deliver the masks on the new date and act from there. The decision lies entirely with him, but he can take no legal action against Ada.

On the other hand, Kevin did not have a binding agreement with Ada.  Ada merely stated her terms of service, as in the case of Harvey v Facey. Kevin showed no intention to be bound to the agreement. He inquired about the details of the purchase. There is no evidence to suggest that Kevin was making an offer during this call. He did not say anything to Ada concerning the transaction because he considered the price too costly. Later on, he called Ada intending to commit to an agreement that he proposed.

Given that Ada had travelled to a different country, Kevin’s attempts to reach her were futile. He decided to leave her a voice message hoping that she would hear it soon enough and agree to his proposed terms. However, Ada did not listen to the message within the time-frame that Kevin thought that she would. He went ahead and sent her the money without waiting for confirmation. He acted based on his statement that he would proceed to transfer the funds if he had not heard from Ada.

The information provided by Ada concerning the price of the masks was not an offer but an invitation to treat. She did not commit to giving the masks to Kevin because he had not offered to buy them in the first place. Therefore, when Kevin proposed his offer of purchasing a large quantity of the masks at a discounted price, Ada was in a position to choose whether to accept or decline the offer, as in the case of Spencer v Harding. Kevin did not wait for Ada’s response and should, therefore, not blame her for any inconveniences encountered.

Ada eventually received the message after Kevin had received the money.  She wanted to decline the offer as it was not in her best interest. However, when she tried to call Kevin, she could not reach him. She decided to send a text message to inform him of her decision. She offered to refund his money because they were unable to reach an agreement.

Ada’s initial offer was to sell the masks at $3300. Kevin countered the offer and proposed to pay $3000. Ada declined this offer and decided to refund the money she had received. She is legally entitled to do so because once a counteroffer is in place, it destroys the initial offer so that the decision no longer lies with the offeree, as in the case of Hyde v Wrench.

Therefore, Kevin has no right to be angry at anyone but himself. He did not commit to an agreement with Ada while she was around. Instead, is he waited until she was out of the country to propose a deal, which did not reach Ada on time. He went ahead and acted without confirmation and is, therefore, responsible for his problems. It is advisable that he accepts the refund and then find an alternative from that point. He cannot take any legal action against Ada, as she is not at fault. He took her silence as acceptance, and this is not legally right, as in the case of Felthouse v Bindley.