Law for Accounting coursework question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Law for Accounting coursework question - testify ExampleMoreover, Serenas vortex had indicated that only bids over ?20,000 would be accepted. The first issue is whether there was an offer and acceptance. Serena made the offer, however, Eric, by stating that he would buy the Galileo at ?19,500 instead of the ?20,000 that Serena was asking for, effectively made a counteroffer.1 The reason for this is the mirror image rule. This rule states that an unequivocal acceptance must mirror the offer merely any deviation made by the offeree to the offeror would therefore be overturned to be a counteroffer. At this point, therefore, it was up to Serena to accept Erics offer, as Eric did not offer an unequivocal, mirror image acceptance of Serenas terms. However, one can state that Serena was not really making a valid offer with her advertisement, as she indicated that she would consider all offers higher than ?20,000. She did not state that the highest bid would be the winner, so to speak, precisely, rather, only indicated that she would consider any and all bids above the threshold number. The courts would state that this was not really an offer at all, but an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is an invitation for bids. This is similar to the case of Spencer v. Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561. This case involved the following offer 28, King Street, Cheapside, may 17th, 1869. ... Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please ad garment to us cockeyed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co.2 The court held that this was not a valid offer, but, rather, an invitation for bids. The show in the offer in Spencer is similar to the wording in the case at bar, therefore, there plausibly was not a valid offer made by Serena for the Gali leo. That said, when Eric made his statement on the respond machine, this would be an offer. As indicated above, when Eric made his statement on the answering machine, the ball was effectively in Serenas court, and she could either accept Erics offer or not. The question is whether Serena did accept the offer. She finally called Eric in January, later having made the original offer in December, and Eric had made the counteroffer in that same month. Both parties knew that Eric wanted the dress for his girlfriends birthday. Serena might have known when Erics girlfriends birthday was, as Eric is her brother. Regardless, when Erics girlfriends birthday came and went, the doctrine of frustration of purpose might apply here. foiling of purpose is Where, after a contract is made, a partys principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his breakout by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his remaining duties to put forward performance are discharged, unless the language or circumstances of the contract indicate the contrary.3 The leading case in English law is that of Krell v Henry 1903