Elements Of A Contract

The business as well as the legal world is built on the ability to create agreements with the existence of a certainty that these agreements will be carried out effectively. Should they not, then there is always an assurance that actions will be taken to redress such a situation. There is a distinction between these promises or bargains, in that they can either be legally enforceable, or not. To speak in legal terms, a contract may be defined as “an agreement which is legally enforceable by law”. In order for a contract to be valid, it must contain certain elements. Lord Denning MR, has stated that in traditional terms, these elements are no longer up to date. This essay will analyse this statement, by examining the different elements of a

As stated before, an agreement is very much the basis of a contract. In general, an agreement is created when one party accepts an offer made by the other. Said agreement must then be both certain and final. If the same argument is used to determine that an agreement is the basis of a contract then it will only be normal to assume that an offer and its subsequent acceptance is the root of an agreement.

Both bases form an integral part of the traditional approach in contract law. Where an offer allows the person or business to whom the offer is made to reasonably expect that the offering party is willing to be bound by the offer on the terms proposed, an acceptance is a clear expression of the accepting party's agreement to the terms of the offer.

In fact Treitel has defined as offer as ““an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is

Lord Denning’s comment would not coming for another 87 years in the case of Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 . This remains a landmark, leading English Contract Law case. It displayed the many problems present in businesses, especially large ones, where each company is striving for their own personal gain, attempting all that is possible in order to obtain their preferred agreements as the basis for the contract. The contract was between Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd, a company specialising in the sale of machinery tools, and Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd, one of their buyers. The former sent a letter to the latter regarding a sale of some new machinery, and that letter consisted of Butler’s contract terms. Included in those terms was a price variation clause, which meant that in the event of a price rise, payment would be borne by Ex-Cell-O. The latter then replied, attaching on a tear off slip their own contract terms which did not include such a clause, which read that they accepted the order on the conditions stated on the slip. Butler then replied asserting that the deal was made under Butler’s terms. Evidently, this appears as it was, a complicated case, with much going on back and forth, a case involving a battle of forms, as Lord Denning rightly stated in his judgment. When the order was delivered, the prices had indeed