Analysis of Contract Law Cases - Free Paper

Bob versus Coco

Case Background Summary

Bob intends to rent a one-bedroom apartment flat at Tredegar Square, the room proves to be too small for his prized collection of Pierre Bonnard Prints. Bob decides to give away one of his prints, the Bowl of Milk, through an advertisement on a local website. The advertisement read that the print would be given to the first individual who would turn up a week later at a given address at a specific time. After two days, Bob decided against his idea and posted a cancellation on the same website. Coco booked a hotel near the given address and was informed of the cancellation later on by her roommate.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Claims and Position

In the case of Bob versus Coco, under contract law, Bob is not liable to payment of any compensation as a result of revoking the offer to give away his Pierre Bonnard Print- the Bowl of Milk, as the offer was withdrawn before Coco formally accepted it. In a contractual law, if the offer was intended for a wider audience, the revocation should have been done the same way as the offer was made Carlil V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1982] EWCA Civ 1. Bob advertised the giveaway of his Pierre Bonnard Print on the website “Shared” on 21 October 2019, and seven days later, on 23 October, he withdrew the offer through an advertisement on the same website.

Coco can claim the advertisement published online by Bob to be an offer hence entitled to compensation for expenses incurred. The advertisement construed all the proposal elements, which contained all the terms that had abundant certainty concerning the terms. Finally, the ad could be accepted without any further negotiations. Hence the advertisement was an offer rather than an invitation to treat as per the case Fisher V Bell [1961] 1qb 394. Thus Bob is liable to pay for the hotel bookings and other expenses incurred.

Bob versus Elio

Case Background Summary

Bob, on his quest to launch his new design outlet, required new computers capable of running on a specific design software called "Smartybean." Bob approaches a popular computer store and describes what he needs to Elio the shop attendant at PC Studio; Bob further reiterates that he may not even give a slight consideration regarding the purchase of the computers if they are not capable of running on the “Smartybean” design software. Elio assures Bob that the computers will be able to operate on the software. Bob decides to purchase 20 computers on which he is entitled to a 17.5 discount for buying more than 19 computers. Bob signs the computer store's order form, which has a clause stating that in case of any damages sustained by the buyer due to the product being faulty or fails to perform as required is limited to the contract price. Bob discovers that the computers are broken and do not support the design software; thus, Bob misses several targets leading to financial loss as he had to pay penalties for the delays.

Claims and Position

Bob can claim compensation from Elio using the Trade Description Act of 1968, which was made into law by the United Kingdom's parliament. The act seeks to protect consumers from retailers, manufacturers, and the service industry by employing false descriptions on the pricing of merchandise or services. In the case of Bob versus Elio, Elio falsely claims that the computers support the Smartybean software which was a false description of the product. Bob can sue for compensation for the loss incurred and inconvenience caused by the computers. Bob can further claim compensation for the faulty computers provided under the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 section 14(2) on quality. The part is intended for sellers who must meet a criterion for the goods to be considered satisfactory quality, which includes freedom from minor defects.

Elio, on the other hand, can be exonerated from paying the claim of the faulty goods as per the same Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 section 14(2) on quality. Elio could be acquitted of any blame for the faulty computers if the computer became defective due to deterioration, misappropriation, or accidental impairment. Suppose Elio can prove that Bob failed to inspect the pieces of equipment before he made the purchase. PC Studio can further acquit itself from paying additional payments due to Bob's signed order form that has a clause that limits the business from paying a new claim from the contractual sum.

Bob versus Angus

Case Summary Background

Bob intends to move to London as he seeks to open a London office for his interior designing firm. Bob’s Uncle Angus owns a one-bedroom flat and offers to rent it to Bob for 800 pounds a month in a business capacity. After thinking about it, Bob accepts the offer through a text message. After viewing the message, Angus replies to inform Bob of his intention to raise the rent to 860 pounds. Bob, on the other hand, deletes the message, presuming it’s an acceptance and appreciation message.

Claims and Position

Bob's position, the verbal agreement with his uncle, met the full threshold to constitute a contract as per English law. The deal had an offer to rent at 800 pounds, acceptance, and consideration, and Bob has a text message to prove acceptance of the 800 pounds a month agreement. Hence Angus breached the contract by raising the rent fee from the agreed amount; thus, Bob is not liable to pay more than the initially agreed terms. Bob is in a position to claim that he did not agree to the new rent payment terms and that he was not informed since he does not possess any piece of information as per the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Angus is in a position to demand the payment of 860 pounds a month because he possesses the text message to show that he communicated his intention of raising the rent and that the failure of Bob to reply to the message meant he had agreed to the terms. Angus can also claim that verbal agreements in the UK do not hold if they involve tenancy agreements; hence, Bob's claims are not legally binding. Angus can also argue that Bob failed to meet the financial consideration as he had not paid a cent to him, as in the Johnson v Patry [2014] BCSC 540. Angus can also claim that in proposing a counteroffer, the initial offer is deemed canceled as in the ruling of Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90.

Claret Ribbon versus Focal Point

Case Background Summary

Focal Point Gallery had an upcoming event and contracted Claret Ribbon to design the

Exhibition gallery. Claret Ribbon described their predicament and Focal Point being desperate for the project to finish on time since they had already sold tickets and agreed to pay an extra 5000 pounds. Claret Ribbon, further owed money to Focal Point for a loan given and had one last outstanding payment of 6,700 pounds. Focal Point, in being sympathetic, decided to write off the outstanding amount. Claret Ribbon used the reserved money for the last installment to purchase new computers. On completion of the project, Focal Point refused to pay the agreed 5000 pounds and also demanded 6,700 pounds.

Claims and Position

Claret Ribbon is in the right position not to pay the last 6,700 installments since it can provide evidence of the cheque or bank payments made to the gallery; also it can show their balance sheet for the reserved planned money to pay the gallery that was used to replace the faulty computers which again can be proven by receipts of purchase. On the 5000 pounds additional payment, Claret Ribbon can put a claim on the pledge made by Focal Point since the promise was legally binding hence Claret Ribbon was to suffer financially if the sign is not fulfilled as a promissory estapel as in the case of Ajayi v Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326. Focal can claim to be paid in full for the outstanding loan amount since there was no written understanding of the loan's cancellation. The focal point gallery is in no position to be forced to pay the additional 5000 pounds, as it was not part of the contract. Focal Point can also claim that its financial situation has shifted and unable to fulfill the pledge to write off the outstanding loan, as in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5.