Sunday, August 11, 2019

Is Andrew obliged to supply a 1,500 computer to Betty, Colin and Edith Coursework

Is Andrew obliged to supply a 1,500 computer to Betty, Colin and Edith - Coursework Example Offers can be general or specific. General offers are meant for general public and anyone who can fulfill the conditions of the offer can accept it. Specific offers are made to specific parties and can be accepted only by them. An offer can be revoked at any time before it is accepted. In the given case, Andrew circulated a flyer to local businesses which means that he made a general offer to all of them. Andrew made his offer in the beginning of the month of January. His advertisement stated that â€Å"any orders notified by the end of January will be met at the special discount price of  £1,500†. Andrew found this offer to be too generous and decided to revoke it. He posted a letter of revocation to the same businesses on 20th of January. However, a revocation cannot be effective unless the offeree knows of it. In Dickenson v Dodds1, the defendant offered to sell property to the plaintiff. Before the plaintiff could reply, the defendant sold the property to a third party. A friend of the plaintiff told him that the house was sold. It was held that the offer was effectively revoked and was no longer open for acceptance because the plaintiff’s friend’s intimation was adequate notice and a reasonable person would have easily deemed the offer to have been revoked. In the given case, it is important to consider whether the acceptance was completed before the offer was revoked. Andrew communicated his revocation of offer through post on the 20th of January as against himself but the letter was not delivered before the 2nd of February. In Adams v Lindsell2, a famous rule called â€Å"Postal Rule† was established according to which the acceptance of an offer is complete when a letter of acceptance has been posted. However, this rule is not applicable on the communication of revocation of offer by post. In Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean3, the plaintiff was an iron merchant who purchased iron and sold it to third

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.