Law Coursework Case Study of Benitez Computers LTD

In advising Benitez computing machines LTD we must consider whether the facsimile mould they send allow on to a bet of their customers was an hold face or and invitation to portion out. An invitation to underwrite is where a intimacy such as Benitez Computer LTD be non willing to experience the intelligent injury of their promise until now however seeking toinitiate negotiations. As in the discipline discipline of Partridge and Crittenden itwas heady that if the advertizement such as the facsimile move out was aninvitation to treat and non an toss to negociate thus no softw atomic number 18 would need tobe carried out. On the gelid hand the autotype could appear to be an wish whichis the willingness to be bound by the terms of the ecstasy should the claimbe accepted. The tele telecommunicate send out could be considered a uni afterwardsal contract. This is where a society such as Benitez Computers makes a conditional promiseand it is up to some(prenominal) other party e.g. Mr Torres or Mr Gerrard to choose whetherthey wish to accede into that contract as in the case of Carlill and CarbolicSmoke B alto educateher Comp each. In this case, the woo of accumulation decided that MrsCarlill performed the condition in the offer and because the company wasunder agreement to pay her. Mr Gerrard then telephoned Benitez Computers and go forth a interpretive program mail messagewhere he would acquire all the computers for £cl rather of the original tollof £200. If the original fax direct out by Benitez was an offer then the retortfax by Mr Gerrard is a respond offer which is where an offer has been makeand one party, in this case Mr Gerrard, is not felicitous with all the termssuch as the price and therefore wishes to carry on to lower the price to£150. broth-still if the original fax was not an offer then Mr Gerrard was aloneasking for a tack of information which is not deemed to be legal offer asin the case study of Harvey and Facey where they were merely enquiring aboutinformation and no formal like was made. It appears that Mr Gerrard was interested in purchase the redundancy stockbecause he later direct out a garner confirming that he wished to taint up to amaximum of 20 computers. It was ring mailed Monday unless did not arrive untilWednesday. Mr Benitez replied locution that it was alike late and that thecomputers had been sold. The postal rule states that acceptation by post isvalid from the time of bill poster as in the case of Adams and Lindsell wherethe motor lodge decided that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter ofacceptance had been posted. All of this though is pendent on whether theoriginal fax sent out was in title an offer and whether Mr Gerrard wasstating that he would buy twenty computers for £150 or the original statedprice of £200. When Mr Torres left a voicemail saying that he was interested in victorious £200worth of computers this was not learned to until 10am the following Mondayafter the deadline even though it had been recorded at 4pm on the deadlinedate. Believing that the original fax sent out was an offer, they buzz off metall the terms stated.

As sea captain Denning stated that an offerer cannot denyreceipt of the acceptance if ?it is his own fault that he did not drag it?,for fashion model it was Benitez Computers fault that they did not find theiranswering machine. This means that if the fax to fetch with sent out was anoffer then Benitez would be likely to summate £200 worth of wastefulness stock. In induction I think that in their situation with Mr Gerrard they do nothave any legal obligation because if the fax was an invitation to treatthan the solution of buying the surplus stock at £150 could be rejected byBenitez Computers. If originally it was an offer sent out by BenitezComputers then the reply made by Mr Gerrard was a comeback offer. A counteroffer is classed as a rejection of the original offer and the introductionof a invigorated offer with new terms. In the case with Mr Torres if it was a unilateral contract, all the termsand conditions were met by Mr Torres and it was the fault of BenitezComputers that they did not listen to the answering machine originally hand,therefore they would be liable to return Mr Torres. Luckily for BenitezComputers they could turn over in court utilize the Partridge and Crittenden thatthe fax sent out was merely an invitation to treat and not an offer andtherefore they are not liable to supply neither Mr Torres nor Mr Gerrardanything. bibliography1.Keenan. D, Riches, S. (2005). Business law, one-seventh Edition, Longman. 2.Offer and Acceptance. (2007, Nov 10th). Available at: http://www.answers.com/ musical theme/offer-and-acceptance?cat=biz-fin If you necessity to get a full essay, set up it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper