Essays.club - Get Free Essays and Term Papers
Search

Hong Kong Legal Case Study

Autor:   •  March 8, 2018  •  1,122 Words (5 Pages)  •  659 Views

Page 1 of 5

...

and Charles promised not to sell the vase within that week. Offerees should agree to all the essential terms in the offer (i.e. the selling price in this case) as an acceptance. In this situation, as Alan did not accept the offer, no agreement was formed. Thus, Charles did not make any contract with Alan.

Promise - Open binding?

Binding promise means a contract, and consideration given from both side is one of the necessary elements in making a valid contract. In other words, only promises meeting all requirements including the existence of considerations and mutual agreement from both offeror and offeree, are enforceable. However, when the promise is made with only consideration from one side, it is more likely to be a gift and therefore, not binding. This is reflected from Dickson v Dodds (1876) (note 2) where Dodds made a promise to keep the offer of selling some houses open until a certain time, which turns out Dodds sold the houses five hours earlier. The judge commented there was no considerations from Dickson, Dodds’ promise was not binding.

Referring to the case, Charles made his promise of not selling the antique vase until Alan called within one week. Charles clearly made a consideration of performing an act of not selling the vase for one week, but Alan did not promise to provide any additional payment or consideration of other forms for Charles to keep his promise. Thus, the promise made by Charles is not open binding.

Revocation of offer

At the beginning of the situation, an advertisement placed by Charles is considered as an invitation to treat. For Alan, this invitation to treat was no longer effective as he had proposed an offer of $1,250,000 which was different from the amount stated in the advertisement. The original price of $1,500,000 was cancelled and it cannot be accepted again since it had terminated already. Furthermore, a counter offer had been made by Charles which stated that he was ready to sell the vase for $1,400,000. Although Charles had promised that he would not sell that vase until Alan called him with his decision within one week, a mere promise to keep the offer open for a certain time is not enforceable. The counter offer can be revoked before the expiry period. In other words, Charles had the right to sell the vase to others within the promised time period. As Alan only considered of buying the vase and did not show any acceptance to the counter offer, no contract is formed and Charles could revoke it at any time. At last, Charles revoked his counter offer to Alan and sold the vase to Eddie for $1,550,000 before Alan replied him.

Conclusion

To conclude, there was no valid contract between Alan and Charles as there was no mutual agreement on any of the offer. Charles’ promise of keeping the vase for one week time is also not enforceable since Alan did not give any consideration for Charles to keep the promise. Therefore, Alan could not sue Charles for breach of contract.

Bibliography:

Stott, V. (2010). Forming a contract. In An introduction to Hong Kong business law (4th ed., p. 58-60). Hong Kong: Pearson.

Turner, C. (2007). Unlocking contract law (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold. pp. 32–33. ISBN 978-0-340-94196-6.

...

Download:   txt (6.4 Kb)   pdf (47 Kb)   docx (12.6 Kb)  
Continue for 4 more pages »
Only available on Essays.club