On 9 February 2010, James received a written offer from Bond for the purchase of James's antique car for the sum of RM55,000. The letter expressly stated that if Bond did not reply within two weeks James would presume that Bond had accepted the offer. Bond did not reply. James now claims that there is a binding contract between him and Bond. State whether there is a binding contract between James and Bond. Give reasons for your answer. (50 marks)
Consumer Law, Warranties Case Study
- Thread Starter erik8tlw
- Start date
- Status
fredrikklaw
Moderator
No Contract Here!
For a contract to exists between two parties, there has to be offer and acceptance (meeting of the minds) and be supported by consideration. Offer is a one person's (offeror) clear and unequivocal indication of Present contractual intent which should be communicated to the offeree whose assent (acceptance) would form a bargain (contract).
Acceptance is a final unqualified assent to the terms of an offer and as such requires communication to the offeror, and while he can specify the method of acceptance, say by mail, fax, or e-mail, he is barred by the rules of acceptance to specify Silence as means of acceptance. There is also the "Mirror Image Rule" which states that an acceptance has to conform exactly to all the terms of the offer without modification which again requires communication. So, generally, silence cannot be construed as acceptance of an offer.
However, acceptance may be inferred by conduct. (Example) A receives goods he did not ask for and instead of returning them to seller (B), he opens the packages and uses the goods to his benefit and does not correspond with B in any shape or form. Here, A's conduct can be construed as having accepted the offer.
Here, no contract exists between James and Bond for the sale of James's antique car and Bond has no cause of action against James because acceptance requires communication and assent to all terms of the offer exactly, neither of which was done by James and Silence is not, and cannot be construed as an indication of assent.
Frederiklaw
For a contract to exists between two parties, there has to be offer and acceptance (meeting of the minds) and be supported by consideration. Offer is a one person's (offeror) clear and unequivocal indication of Present contractual intent which should be communicated to the offeree whose assent (acceptance) would form a bargain (contract).
Acceptance is a final unqualified assent to the terms of an offer and as such requires communication to the offeror, and while he can specify the method of acceptance, say by mail, fax, or e-mail, he is barred by the rules of acceptance to specify Silence as means of acceptance. There is also the "Mirror Image Rule" which states that an acceptance has to conform exactly to all the terms of the offer without modification which again requires communication. So, generally, silence cannot be construed as acceptance of an offer.
However, acceptance may be inferred by conduct. (Example) A receives goods he did not ask for and instead of returning them to seller (B), he opens the packages and uses the goods to his benefit and does not correspond with B in any shape or form. Here, A's conduct can be construed as having accepted the offer.
Here, no contract exists between James and Bond for the sale of James's antique car and Bond has no cause of action against James because acceptance requires communication and assent to all terms of the offer exactly, neither of which was done by James and Silence is not, and cannot be construed as an indication of assent.
Frederiklaw
Last edited:
- Status
Ask a Question
Share this page
