1,851
6
Essay, 2 pages (450 words)

Contract law: steven v susan

The legal tussle here is on breach of contract between the buyer and the seller in relation to the Australian Law of Contract. The various legal issues that come into play in this problem are invitation to treat; intention to create legal relations between the buyer and seller; offer; counter offer; consideration; revocation of offer; postal acceptance rule; domestic or family arrangements; breach of contract; and finally the vagueness of terms of offer or contract (Radan, et al., 2009, pp. 8-67).
The classified advertisement was an invitation to treat since it is simply like putting something on display as is in the case of Carbolic v Carbolic Smoke Ball. This was simply an intention to create legal relations between the seller and the buyer as seen in Partridge v Crittendon. The first scenario presents an offer when Susan advertises the piano for $8000. Steven accepted the offer through his letter. Susan’s shift from $8000 to $10, 000 could be viewed as a counter offer to the price agreed by Steven as seen in the case of Hyde v Wrench. There was no consideration here since this is not given by Steven. This could be illustrated by the case of Watson v Phipps. The revocation of offer also plays in this situation. The revocation is made at the time prior to Steven’s acceptance of the offer as seen in Byne v Tienhoven. The delay of the letter delivery brings about the postal acceptance rule and thus Steven had a right to the piano as could be seen in Adams v Lindsell. (Carter, et al., 1996, pp. 56-290)
The new arrangement between Susan and her sister Stephanie could be considered as a domestic or family arrangement seen in the case of Wakely v Ripley. The vagueness of terms arises when children care is brought into the scene and one wonders how many times this care will take place (CCH Australia Limited & Latimer, 2009, pp. 18-287). This is because Stephanie is to take care of the children on Saturday nights. The number of nights is not specified. The fact that the piano is delivered to Julie under this new arrangement brings to focus breach of contract between Susan and Steven where Susan breaches the contract to Steven.
List of References
Radan Peter, Gooley John, & Gooley John (LLM.) (2009), Principles of Australian Contract Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 8-67
Carter John W., Harland David J., & Lindgren Kevin E. (1996), Contract law in Australia, Butterworths, pp. 56-290
CCH Australia Limited & Latimer Paul (2009), Australian Business Law, CCH Australia, pp. 18-287
List of relevant cases
Carbolic v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Partridge v Crittendon
Hyde v Wrench
Watson v Phipps
Byne v Tienhoven
Adams v Lindsell
Wakely v Ripley

Thank's for Your Vote!
Contract law: steven v susan. Page 1
Contract law: steven v susan. Page 2
Contract law: steven v susan. Page 3

This work, titled "Contract law: steven v susan" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay

References

AssignBuster. (2022) 'Contract law: steven v susan'. 17 January.

Reference

AssignBuster. (2022, January 17). Contract law: steven v susan. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/contract-law-steven-v-susan/

References

AssignBuster. 2022. "Contract law: steven v susan." January 17, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/contract-law-steven-v-susan/.

1. AssignBuster. "Contract law: steven v susan." January 17, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/contract-law-steven-v-susan/.


Bibliography


AssignBuster. "Contract law: steven v susan." January 17, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/contract-law-steven-v-susan/.

Work Cited

"Contract law: steven v susan." AssignBuster, 17 Jan. 2022, assignbuster.com/contract-law-steven-v-susan/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Contract law: steven v susan, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]