The Tech Revolution - Essay Example

The Tech Revolution (TTR) Case Analysis Under the law of contracts, a contract is deemed to be valid and binding when it contains the following elements: offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create a legal relationship (Helewitz 19). However, with advertisements it is usually held that they do not comprise of offers, but statements that invite the public and are open to further negotiations. In order to advise the Tech Revolution (TTR) effectively, it is essential to answer the question: what are the requirements for a contract to be valid and binding? Generally, advertisements are considered to be invitations for deals rather than contracts (Miller and Jentz 216). However, advertisements can be considered as offers in certain cases. An advertisement qualifies to be an offer when it is definite in its terms and the publication shows intent of the advertiser to enter into a binding contract (Miller and Jentz 216). Effective communication of an offer to the offeree confers to him the power to transform an offer into a contract through acceptance (Miller and Jentz 216). However, the action of either the offerer or the offeree can terminate an offer. The termination can be done through revocation, rejection or by giving a counteroffer and in some case through operating law (Miller and Jentz 216). Seven Inch Android Tablets In the case of The Tech Revolution, the company advertised Seven Inch Android Tablets selling at ?229. The tablets as claimed in the advertisement are available in all colours. Alan made a written order for a tablet in silver. TTR wrote back to Alan informing him that the company only had green or pink Tablets. Afterwards, TTR found a silver Tablet and wrote back to Alan informing him that they had accepted his offer. However, Alan is no longer interested in the Tablet. The main question that arises out of this scenario is: does a valid contract exist between Alan and TTR? Reviewing the scenario, TTR’s advisement is an invitation made to the public to buy its Tablets. Alan acts the company’s invitation by sending a written order to TTR. Unfortunately, TTR does not accept Alan’s order because they have no silver Tablets in their stock consequently rejecting the offer. As it emerges, TTR has no legal case against Alan. By writing back to Alan and confirming that they could not supply him with silver Tablet, the company revoked the offer. Moreover, the company’s advertisement was made to the general public and does not constitute a binding contract with anyone willing to buy the Tablets. In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boot Cash Chemists (1953), it was held that display of goods did not amount to an offer (Stone, Devenney and Cunnington 36). In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, it was held that Mrs. Carlill, the plaintiff, entitled to receive the reward mentioned in the advertisement. The unanimous decision was based on the fact that the advert was definite in its terms and unilateral. However, TTR’s advertisement of the “Seven Inch Android Tablets” does do provide definite terms besides price. Therefore, the advert is a mere invitation for a deal rather than a binding contract. Soniz Netbooks TTR advertised Soniz Netbook as a special offer going for ?100 for all orders received by 15th November. Betty wrote and posted an acceptance letter for the Soniz Netbook and posted the letter on 14th November. However, the letter arrived on 16th November, prompting TTR to consider it late following their 15th November deadline. Clearly, the advertisement of Soniz Netbooks qualifies to be an offer because it contains definite terms. The main issue is to determine whether TTR is legally liable Betty. Can Betty file a valid legal case against TTR? According to Mailbox Rule under common law, acceptance becomes effective on dispatch and the date on which the offerer receives the letter is immaterial provided that the letter is properly addressed (Tepper 61). In the case, Betty mailed her acceptance letter on 24th November, while the deadline stipulated on the advertisement is 25th November. According to the Mailbox Rule, Betty’s letter qualifies for consideration by TTR because acceptance is deemed to have taken place when she deposited the letter. Based on the Mailbox Rule, TTR is clearly liable to pay damages to Betty should she file a case against the company. However, TTR has an option of putting Betty to task to prove that the letter was indeed posted on the 24th of November. The offeree must prove beyond doubt that the letter had sufficient postage, correctly addressed and was deposited in the mail at the said date (Tepper 61). In the case of Dunlop v Higgins (1848), Dunlop & Company posted an offer letter to Higgins indicating the intention to sell 2,000 tons of pig-Iron. Higgins received the letter late. It was held that there was a binding contract from the moment Dunlop & Company posted the letter. This case applies perfectly to the case of Betty. By posting the letter on 24th November, the letter signifies acceptance of offer and constitutes a binding agreement. Therefore, TTR should expect a possible legal challenge by Betty on the grounds of Mailbox Rule and prepare adequately to challenge the case by proving that the Mailbox Rule does not apply to the case and giving evidence that Betty did not meet the stipulated deadline. Assessing the facts of the case, Betty was within the required timeframe and the a viable option for the company would be to seek out-of court settlement with Betty, should she decide to file a case against the company. Free Quasar Smartphone and Standard 24-Month Contract The facts emerging from this scenario is that Charles makes a donation to the British Olympic Team and also attaches the 24-month contract together with payment receipt to TTR. This happens to fulfill the requirements posted in the company’s advertisement. Unfortunately, Charles learns that TTR canceled the Smartphone deal after posting the letter. The main issues of this case are whether there is a binding contract between TTR and Charles. Clearly there is a binding contract between TTR and Charles. As such, one can conclude that Charles is entitled to get the reward promised by TTR and the company should reconsider and give him the Smartphone deal. This conclusion is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Carlill v Carbolic. It was held by the court that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to get the reward. The basis of the Court’s ruling was founded on the fact that the advert by Carbolic amounted to a unilateral contract, which the plaintiff accepted by acting in accordance with the terms of the offer. The case of TTR’s Smartphone deal is perfectly related to the case of Carlill v Carbolic. Charles performed the conditions stated in the offer and posted his acceptance letter to TTR, which creates a binding contract between the company and Charles. On the other hand, TTR should not worry about any legal case likely to be filed by Charles against the. The company can rely on the argument of effective communication to defend itself against Charles should he file a case against the company. If an offer was made to many people through a publication such as advertisement, Blum argues that “a revocation published in the same way is effective, whether or not a particular offeree actually read it” (Blum 67). As such, Charles stands no chances of filing a successful case against the company. Revocation usually becomes effective when the offeree receives it (Blum 67). In the case, the revocation of the Smartphone deal by TTR is done through the same means it had posted it to the public. To this extent, the company is considered to have effectively communicated its intention to withdraw the contract offer. Therefore, TTR can defend itself against Charles by laying bare the fact that it communicated the contract revocation, which indeed Charles learned of the same day he posted the letter. Nevertheless, revocation would still be effective even if Charles did not see or read the local paper. Works Cited Blum, Brian A. Contracts: examples & explanations (4th Ed). Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2007.Print. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal. Viewed on November 11, 2013 from Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HL Cas 381. Viewed on November 11, 2013 from Helewitz, Jeffrey A. Basic contract law for paralegals (6th Ed).New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010.Print. Miller, Roger LeRoy and Gaylord A. Jentz. Business Law Today: The Essentials. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Stone, Richard, James Devenney and Ralph Cunnington. Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (2nd Ed). New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. Print. Tepper, Pamela R. The law of contracts and the Uniform commercial code. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2011.Print. Read More