Issue returning the missing gold locket and chain.

Issue

 

My advice to Leila would be
based on the issue at hand. The issue is whether the contract between Leila and
Julie is valid, and if it is legally binding. Whether Julie can bring any
actions against Leila for not rewarding for returning the missing gold locket
and chain.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Premise

 

A contract involves certain
basic elements such as offer, acceptance, consideration, an intention to create
legal relations and lack of vitiating factors. An offer is also an intention to
enter legal relationship with another party and in this case, the party acting
on the advertisement by performing the act of finding
the lost gold chain, locket and following the terms stated is
said to have accepted the offer who is Julie, the offeree. (Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW. 2003) As for
Leila, she has made a Unilateral offer as it is a newspaper advertisement made public
or the whole world, and not to identifiable individuals.

An offer is the willingness of
the offeror to enter into legally binding contract with the offeree. (Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW. 2003) In
terms either implied or expressed by either party to indicate that the contract
will be binding to the offeror as soon as acceptance is conveyed by the offeree
Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982) 2 MLJ 22.

An acceptance of an offer may
be express (orally or in writing) or implied by conduct. (Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW. 2003) However,
an acceptance need not be communicated to or received by the offeror in 3
situations such as the postal or mailbox rule, silence and waiver of
communication. For the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball (1893) 1 QB 256,
waiver can be described as when the offeror has omitted with the requirement of
communication of acceptance.

Consideration is necessary to
create a legally binding agreement. It is also benefits accruing one party for
entering into a contract. (Phang, A. (2004)
In
a contract, one consideration is also exchanged for another consideration
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153.

 

Authority

 

This principle of law has been
effectively established in the case of Carlill v Carbolic (Ibid), where
Carbolic Smoke Ball company made an advertisement to the public whereby if
anyone buys the smoke ball and gets flu after using it correctly, would get a
reward of £100.

However as instructed, Mrs.
Carlill still caught the flu after using the smoke ball. She wanted to claim
the £100 but the company refused to
pay as they claim that the advertisement was not an offer. In the court, Mrs.
Carlill was able to claim the £100 as the company has made a unilateral offer
through advertisement.

Therefore, in
this case Julie will be able to claim $50 as of reward from Leila, for
accepting her offer. Carlill v Carbolic (Ibid)

In another case whereby there
has a legally binding agreement. Harbhajan Lal vs. Harcharan Lal (AIR 1924 A11. 539). In this case, Har Bhajan
Lal created an advertisement through pamphlets stating whoever being able to
trace his son and brings him back to his father, will get RS. 500. In which, the
plaintiff saw the advertisement at a railway station, and saw Ram Kishen, realising
he is the missing boy. He then brought him to the Railway Police Station, also
sent telegram to Har Bhajan Lal, asking for reward.

Similarly, an acceptance has
been made by Julie after she had read the advertisement and finds the locket
and chain on her way home. Thus, the contract between Leila and Julie has been
made, resulting in a waiver of communication, without the need to inform or
phone Leila. Harbhajan Lal v Harcharan Lal (Ibid).

On the next
case Gunthing v Lynn (1831) 2B & AD 232 whereby Lynn offers to buy a
horse if it was a lucky horse, for $5 more. However, it turns out to be
otherwise. In this case, the condition when Lynn offered to pay $5 more, it was
too vague to create a binding contract between them. Therefore, similarly in
Leila’s case, she did not state in her advertisement that anyone who finds it must
phone it before returning.

 

Argument / claim

 

Leila can argue that she has
expressly stated her phone number on the advertisement, this would require
Julie to telephone before returning her locket and chain Gunthing v Lynn (Ibid).
Moreover, Leila can argue that she puts up advertisement on newspaper is a
unilateral offer whereby it is to the world at large. In the argument, unless Leila’s
advertisement is an invitation to treat, there will be no binding contract
between them. This happens when one party invites the other to make an offer to
create a contract but, invitation to treat is not an offer. (Tabalujan, S B., Du Toit-Low, V., & Huan, L. Y. J. 2015)
Therefore,
accepting an invitation to treat is just merely making an offer and this means
there is no contract between them as she is only inviting to make an offer.
This can allow Leila to refuse to pay Julie the reward.

 

Counter-Argument / claim

 

In this case,
although Leila has stated her number in her advertisement, Julie can argue that
the advertisement was not clear enough. Leila should have stated on her
advertisement saying that Julie should call before returning. However, it
clearly stated that there will be a reward of $50 for returning of locket and
chain, regardless of returning to the address given or calling beforehand Harbhajan
Lal vs. Harcharan Lal (Ibid). Leila still refuses to reward Julie even when she tried collecting her
reward at 1 Titanic Drive and she told Julie she should have telephoned first
before collecting so that she would be able to claim her reward. However, by
Julie returning the items to Leila, it has already become a contract thus, no
phone calling was required and so, Julie will be able to claim her reward
because the terms were met.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the
argument presented, there is binding contract between Leila and Julie. Through
executed consideration, whereby an act done by one party, for exchange of
promised made. (Tabalujan, S B., Du Toit-Low, V., &
Huan, L. Y. J. 2015) When it has been completed by the party, the
consideration will have said to be executed. As such, Leila will have to fulfil
to Julie’s consideration as Julie found the lost item while on the way home
Currie v Misa (Ibid) In addition, with the Contract Law, the offer by Leila has
been made to the world at large which Julie has accepted it. Moreover,
this advertisement was made to the world at large and Leila would not know who
will take the offer, which means it is a unilateral offer and thus, anyone who
finds it and returns it is deemed as an acceptance of the offer.

 

Question 1b)

 

My answer would
have been different if it was an exchange done independently or any exchange or
promise, which would be known as past consideration. (Tabalujan, S B., Du
Toit-Low, V., & Huan, L. Y. J. 2015) In the following case R v Clarke
(1927) 40 CLR 227, Clarke tried claiming the reward of $1000 after he had
provided the information to which leads to the conviction of a murderer of 2
policemen named Walsh and Pitman. However, Clarke was not able to claim any
reward because back in June when he was on trial, he gave the information, so
he would be able to clear his own name for the murder. At that point, Clarke
was not aware of reward and thus, there is no contract binded. With that, the
consideration that he has made was in the past. Therefore, a consideration will
not be valid if a consideration was made in the past Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3
QB 234. Adding on, if he does not know about the rewards, he will not be
entitled for it. I will conclude that in Julie’s case, if she had not read the
advertisement, this would also mean that she will not be aware of the rewards.
Therefore, after Julie was then told about the reward by April after finding
the returning the locket and chain, it would not be a valid consideration
because it was done in the past.

With the next
case, Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669, William McArdle left a house to his five
children in equal shares. His wife, Ms McArdle did improvements to the house
costing £488 and even get her children to sign
documents, promising to repay Ms McArdle after everything has been evenly
distributed. After distributing evenly, the children refused to pay her. In
this current situation, Ms McArdle had already performed the work before she
asked for payment.

Thus, similarly
to R v Clarke (Ibid), her consideration was in the past, and it is not a good
consideration which adds on to not a valid consideration Roscorla v Thomas
(Ibid). In addition, it was only a promise to pay, as
the promise to make payment came only after the consideration has performed,
which resulted to transaction has not been completed.

 

Question 2a)

 

Issue

 

The legal issue
here is Adam being the Plaintiff, Edwin being the Defendant. Plaintiff wants to
bring legal actions to defendant over a possible breach of contract. The issue
at hand is whether there is valid contract between the parties and if so was
there a breach occurred. In this case, Edwin has already agreed to sell Adam a
1925 Rolls Royce for $500,000 but refused to sell after someone offers to buy
at a higher price, $700,000.

 

Premise

 

A contract has
requirements for it to be legally binded. Firstly, there must be a meeting of
minds (consensus ad idem), whereby both parties must show there are intentions
to create legal relations with each other. Secondly, there must be
consideration of both parties such as money paid for work done. Adding on,
legal capacity to contract is one of the elements which make a contract. (Chandran, R. 2003) Breach of contract is a failure,
performing any promise that forms part of the contract without any legal
excuse. (Chandran, R. 2003) Remedies for breach of contract includes injunction
which is a specific performance by the judge to the defendant as agreed between
the two parties. The other remedy for breach would be damages or monetary
compensation, quantum meruit. (Chandran, R. 2003)

 

Authority

 

The following
case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA the Mareva
(1980) 1 All ER 213, Mareva Injunction could be a third remedy for Adam. The
Mareva Compania Naviera SA issued a writ to claim against International Bulkcarriers
SA the Mareva, the defendants for unpaid hire and damages for repudiation of a
charterparty. However, in this case, the court extended the injunction duration
to restrain the charterers from disposing the they had. 

In this remedy,
Adam could seek for Mareva injunction from the court whereby it could freeze
Edwin’s assets. With this, Edwin will not be allowed to sell his vehicle to the
Arabian Sheik.

Another remedy
for Adam would be the injunctions whereby it is a court order restraining a
person from doing a certain act. Injunction could be granted if the damages
would be an insufficient remedy. Therefore, Adam could ask for an injunction
from the court, so Edwin will not be able to sell the Rolls Royce 1925 to the
Arabian Sheik. As we can see from the case Warner Bros v Nelson (1936) 3 All ER
160, Nelson entered into a contract with Warner Bros and during this period, she
is only allowed to only perform for them. Nelson then left the country to and
had another contract with another company. Warner Bros then brought injunction
to restrain her from working for other company.

Under the next
case, Nutbrown v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159 Specific Performance is a remedy
when used by a court, for a party to do something specific. In this case, the
claimant entered into a contract with the defendant as he wants to purchase a
machinery. However, the defendant breaches the contract and did not deliver the
machineries purchased by the claimant thus, specific performance of the
contract was sought, and it was granted. Therefore, the defendant was forced to
sell.

Similarly, for
Edwin, he has breached the contract under the facts of law whereby he refuses
to sell even with the terms of contract, knowing that the Rolls Royce is very
rare in the market, he could sell the vintage car at a higher price.

In this remedy,
Adam could seek for Mareva injunction from the court whereby it could freeze
Edwin’s assets. With this, Edwin will not be allowed to sell his vehicle to the
Arabian Sheik.

 

Argument / claim

 

Adam can argue
that the time when he agreed to buy 1925 Rolls Royce from Edwin, they have
already entered into a contract. In other words, if Edwin does not want to sell
to Adam, he could be sued for the breach of contract. This is because according
to the case Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 E&B 678, Hochster as the
plaintiff who agrees to help De La Tour, the defendant as a courier. However,
the defendant decides not to hire him as a courier. The plaintiff then sued him
for breach of contract and the court held the plaintiff.

 

Counter-Argument / claim

 

As a
counter-claim, Edwin may argue that even though the Arabian Sheik offered
$200,000 more to buy the Rolls Royce, Edwin did not sign the contract with him
and this means they have not entered into a contract.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the
discussion above, Adam could take legal actions against Edwin by seeking for
injunction or Mareva injunction whereby it could freeze or stop Edwin from
selling the vehicle. In addition, Adam could also enforce specific performance
on Edwin to force him to comply with the terms and conditions. With these legal
actions taken, Edwin will have to sell the Rolls Royce 1925 at the initially
offered price, $500,000.

 

Question 2b)

 

Yes, my advice
would be different if it was a late model Mercedes Benz. This is because
comparing a late model Mercedes Benz and a vintage Rolls Royce, the price of
both vehicles will be different. Moreover, Rolls Royce is harder to find in the
market due to its rarity. For a remedy, both liquidated and unliquidated
damages are possible. My advice would be unliquidated damages as it is for a
party who suffered the loss after contract had been performed properly. Moreover,
in this case, Edwin refuses to sell the Mercedes Benz is a breach of contract
which Adam could suffer a loss and thus, money damages could be the
compensation.

 

References

 

Chandran, R. (2003). Introduction to business law Singapore. Singapore:  McGraw Hill Education 2003. Retrieved on 25th
January 2018.

Phang, A. (2004). Basic
Principles of Singapore Business Law. Singapore: Thompson Learning Asia
2004.  Retrieved on 25th
January 2018.

Shenoy, TL. G., & Ling, LW. (2013). Principles of Singapore Business Law. Singapore:
Singapore Management University 2013. Retrieved on 25th January
2018.

Tabalujan, S B., Du Toit-Low, V., & Huan, L. Y.
J.  (2015). Singapore Business Law. Singapore: Thompson Information 1996.
Retrieved on 25th January 2018.