Contract Law case study Question

1. Peter's offer constitutes 3 main elements: selling computer to Mary; 50% of deposit pay in advance; remaining 50% will be paid after delivery of computer within 15 days.

Mary should have accepted the offer and paid up the deposit before the computer is delivered. If so, there is a valid contract and it is a clear breach of contractual provisions. Peter can recover the price from Mary.You do not need any other principles to assist you in such circumstances.

If Mary did not accept the offer and did not pay up the deposit before the computer is delivered but keeps the computer in her possession, she will be deemed to have accepted the offer by conduct.Peter can recover the price from Mary.

InRoberts v. Hayward, a tenant accepted his landlord's offer of a newtenancy at an increased rent by simply staying on the premises. It was heldthat he had accepted the landlord's offer by conduct.

However, if Mary did not keep the laptop, did not assumer right of ownership on it and tried to return it to Peter, it does not constitute an acceptance by conduct.

I cannot see how Promissory estoppel can be applicable to this situation.

2. How can you use promissory estoppel? It can be used as a shield (to defend) and not as a sword (to sue)!!!

You need not focus too much on the theory. But you must get precendents to support you. Remember Stare Decisis!

It is a well-etsablished principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. The court will never inquire into the adequacy of consideration. An example is Chappell & Co v Nestle where it was held by the Court of Appeal that 6 chocolate bar wrappersin return for a gramophone the Nestle chocolate company was offering aspart of a promotion, was valid consideration for Nestle's offer.



2008-10-14 20:20:21 補充：
hence Sally cannot sue John for the reasons of inadequency of consideration for the overtime work

2008-10-14 20:46:54 補充：
3. It depends. Voidable contracts by minors are confined to contracts by which an infant acquires an interest in some subject matter of a permanent nature. Otherwise the contract will be treated as void.

2008-10-14 20:46:58 補充：
If Mary acquires an interest in some subject matter of a permanent nature, Mary can choose whether or not to void the contract. So it depends on Mary's wish.

For Question 1: In this case, you could examine the legal principle of a breach of contract. It occurs where one of the s parties fails to carry out the terms of the contract in the manner required by the contract. Any breach of contract will entitle the innocent party to claim damages and may be entitled to claim any of the other remedies so that P is entitled to enforceable M to carry out her obligation such as paying outstanding balance.

If there is question asking you about the legal principle of binding contract. You must note from the case, P offers M to sell a car in oral or wriitten or by conduct, and M accept for his offer by paying him deposit and in the possession of computer. Both parties intend to be legally bound by an agreement of sales of computer.

2008-10-20 20:41:00 補充：
For Question 2: Under Employment Right Act, it states that employer are repsonsible to pay reasonable remuneration. John wish to change the terms of Sally's employment contract and the change is made by mutual agreement.

2008-10-20 20:41:29 補充：
In the case, Johhn and Sally both agreed to make variation of the terms of Sally's contract. This will be binding as the variation is supported by consideration, (lump sum of remuneration pay $500)

2008-10-20 20:41:50 補充：
however, it is doubtful whether Sally promise to accept less than her agreed hourly rate for overtime work can ever be binding on them.

1. Yes. Use breach of contract.

2. No. Sally uses the theory of breach of contract again. It does not work because there is no breach of contract.

3. Ususally those non-necessaries good requires a written contract, such as insurance, real estate these big ticket items. So in the case, you can't really use minor as the defense for a computer. (Remember she paid 50% for acknowledge her obligation.