Valid Contract Case Study

1.1 THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF VALID CONTRACT

In UK the key elements of a valid contract are offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relation. These are explained below:

1.1.1 Offer

An offer is expression of willingness by offeror to contract on specific terms with the intention that upon acceptance, it will become legal binding. There should be no further negotiations or discussions required. In the case of Storer V Manchester City Council (1974) the court of appeal held that there was a contract as the council had sent Storer a contract on the sale of council house stating it would be binding upon his acceptance. Storer was only required to sign the sale documents and return it.

However, in the case of Gibson V Manchester

There is no legal commitment until a contract has been formed and either party may change their mind and withdraw from the negotiations. But the question now is can Ann now terminate the offer through the Fax? Under communication by the postal rule, the offer has been accepted by Ann and contract formed. However, in the case of James and Ann it can be argued that although the post by Ann constitute acceptance, James did not stipulates the method of communication of acceptance. The method used by the offeree in this case, Ann is not less advantageous to the offeror. Therefore Ann could have used fax to communicate acceptance just like the post. Also, since the fax would be received before the post, James would not suffer any loss by the revocation of Ann earlier acceptance, no contract would be

Even though promissory estoppel does not have the essential element of valid contract it can still be ensure at the law court because of its economics lose that might occur to promisee. For promissory estoppel to be revoked there should be promisor, promise and economics lose if the promise is decline.

The concept of promissory estoppels in modern times can also be illustrated from central London Property Trust v. High Tree House ltd (1974). In this case, the landlord promised to receive from the tenant half of the ground rent due to the difficulty in finding tenants during the war period. When the war was over the flats became fully occupied and the landlord sued for the remaining of the ground rent during the war period. The court using the concept of promissory estoppel held that the landlord was not entitled to the ground rent during the war period. BPP learning media page 2013 page 92

Conclusion

It must be noted that whereas a promissory estoppel may be used as a defence by a promisee to object a strict enforcement of legal rights by the promisor who has failed to carry on his promise, for the principle to be applicable; there are various requirements which must be met as discussed