Common Law Essay

a) In a letter go out 14/02/2011, the theatre director (Dave) of nice Foods (EF) outlined conditions in committal to writing to the manager (Ben) of practiced Foods (SF) in relation to the purchase of EF. These conditions were that SF must compensate the determine amount of EF, which totaled $120,000, $30,000 more than the authentic amount that SF had been prepared to redress and stipulated during rather negotiations. At the time of the in front negotiations, SF also had set a purchase requirement, which was that EFs sales must sum up by 20% over the next two months and if this requirement was met, SF would be prepared to pay the $90,000.After earlier negotiations, EF had their business valued at $120,000 and notified SF of the valuation and that they promptly required this amount, not the $90,000 that SF had introduceed. SF did not reply to EF.Whilst EF met the sales increase seat and forwarded the record of sales to SF along with the deepen of business receive as well as a new condition of the contract existence that EF require 10% of the 120,000 within 14 days, SF responded in writing stating they no eight-day were interested in purchasing EF. It would appear that EF are no longer interested in purchasing SF due to the $30,000 charge increase and the term that they would now need to pay 10% within 14 days.An important aspect in forming a jurally dressing contract is giving and receiving the acceptance of an offer. The requirement of acceptance with every binding legal contact is tied closely to the concept of unqualified mutual assent. unless when both parties have given their mutual consent does the law manage a binding legal contact to have been formed. Hence, if the offeree remains silent, their g waiver over cannot constitute an acceptance.1Another important aspect when creating a legally binding contract is that the acceptance of the offer must exactly mirror the footing and conditions of the offeree and vice versa. If the re is even a slight difference, this will nearly likely not constitute a valid acceptance. If an offer is make that does not mirror the terms of the original offer, than this is considered a counter-offer, which now negates the original offer.An example of this is demonstrated in the case of Hyde v wrick (1840) where become offers to sell his land to Hyde for the price of 1200 pounds of which Hyde declined to accept. Wrench responded with a counter-offer of 1000 pounds and Hyde responded with another(prenominal) counter-offer of 950 pounds. When Wrench declined the counter offer, Hyde decided he would accept the earlier offer of 1000 pounds, however Wrench decided he would no longer sell his land to Hyde for this amount. As Hyde had made another counter-offer after the earlier offer, the offer of 1000 pounds was now und wizard. Hyde sued Wrench for breach of contract claiming that the earlier offer was not withdrawn however the salute found that Wrench did not need to withdraw the offer of 1000 pounds as it was undone when the counter-offer of 950 pounds was made.2In this case, SF made an offer to EF, being $90,000 if sales increase by 20% in two months. EF later responded with a counter-offer of $120,000, which then destroyed the earlier offer of $90,000. SF did not respond to this counter offer, so not accepting the new offer. EF also added terms to the offer that were not antecedently discussed with SF, which also did not mirror the terms of the earlier offer of which the court considers being a strict requirement for full and unequivocal assent.3Excellent Foods cannot commence an action for breach of contract against Safe Foods as the counter-offer negates the original offer of which Safe Foods did not respond to and therefore is not considered as an acceptance of the terms.b) Promissory estoppel is an equitable action, which is designed to enforce telephones made from one party to another where the prefigures are not supported by considerati on. The dogma of promissory estoppel can only be applied if a all the way promise was made from the promisor to the promisee, if the promisse has suffered a significant loss from the promisor now going back on its promise, if the promiser acted unconscionably, and if the promisse undertook certain acts (or refrained from initiate certain acts) due to the promisers initial promise.A leading(a) case which illustrates the purpose of promisary estoppal is Waltons Stores v Maher where Waltons negotiated with Maher over the grant of a film of property that Maher owned. Maher agreed to demolish a expression in coiffure to make way for a new custom designed structure to be occupied by Waltons. Changes and agreements were made by both parties over the following months. Waltons later decided that they no longer required the building after Maher had already informed then that they were proceeding with the demolition and in spite of being aware of this, advised their solicitors to go black in communicate Maher of their reservations.Due to Maher having initially received a clear promise, suffered considerable loss and completed many acts under the belief that Waltons would go ahead with the promise as well as Waltons acting unconscionably against Maher in going slow in informing Maher of their true intentions, Maher was able to rely on promisary estoppel and therefore won on first instance and later at the appeal.4In this case, Excellent Foods did not suffer any considerable loss from Safe Foods not following through with the business transfer. Whilst there was an initial promise made by SF to EF, EF later requested 10% of the transfer price of $120,000 within 14 days a term that had not previously been negotiated. It may be because of this term that SF does not wish to continue with the transfer in which case they have not acted unconscionably. EF informed SF in writing that they did not wish to continue with the transfer.