Harvey vs Facie

Facts:

The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, in this case, involved 3 telegrams.

1. Telegram by the defendant – will you sell as the bumper hall pen telegraph at the lowest price.
2. Telegram by the defendant to the plaintiff – lowest price for the bumper hall pen is 900 pounds. 
3. Telegram by the plaintiff to the defendant – we agree to buy the bumper call pen for 900 pounds.

In the Telegram, the defendant did not mention the sale for a bumper hall pen. The defendant has only told the amount for the bumper hall pen. However, the defendant refused to sell the estate at the price. So the plaintiff filed the case against the defendant.

Issues:

1. Whether it is a valid contract or not?
2. Whether it is a binding contract or not?
3. Was the telegram advising of the lowest price of 900 pounds an offer capable of acceptance?

Observation:

After careful scrutiny of the wordings of all the three telegrams, it held that there was no binding contract between them. It is not a valid contract between Harvey and Facie. In the third telegram, Harvey agreed to buy. But the facie did not reply for the third telegram so the contract is not completed.

1st telegram as a mere inquiry.

2nd telegram was treated as an answer to the inquiry.

3rd telegram was treated as an offer expressing the plaintiff’s willingness to purchase the estate for the price mentioned in it.

Judgment:             

The court refused the claims to the plaintiff because the defendant replied for the lowest price of a bumper hall pen, but the defendant didn’t tell the answer for willingness to sell. In the third telegram, the defendant was willing to buy the bumper hall pen, but the defendant did not reply to the third telegram. So there is no binding contract between them. There is no proper acceptance of the contract. So the parties have no proper offer and acceptance, so the contract is invalid.

The post An offer must be distinguished from a quatation or an invitation to an offer appeared first on LexForti .

Durga Prasad vs Baldeo

Facts:

The plaintiff requested the district collector to construct some shops in his town. Those shops were given for rent to the defendant for doing business. The rent was also fixed. Later, the defendant had  promised to the plaintiff that he will be giving  a 5% commission to him on all articles which he is going to sell through that shop in consideration of the construction of the building by the plaintiff by spending huge money. However, the defendant failed to pay the commission. So Durga Prasad filed a suit against the shopkeepers who did not give the commission.

Issues:

1. Whether the contract is valid or not?
2. Whether this is a proper contract or not?

Plaintiff contention

The plaintiff contended that The defendant promised to give a 5% commission for all the articles sold through the shop, and the articles have been sold. as the defendant’s consideration of the construction of the building is there  so it makes It a proper contract. So the defendant is supposed to give the 5% commission.

Defendant contention

The construction of the building was done without the consideration of the defendant. The defendant never showed any intention to construct the building. So the contract is invalid.

Observation:

The parties have no proper consideration, so it is not a proper contract between the parties. The Indian Contracts Act clearly stated that the contract without consideration is void. The consideration of both of the parties was necessary. In this case, there was no personal benefit for the promissory, the plaintiff on the ground that the construction of the shop was not done at the desire of the defendant but was done at the desire of the district collector.

Judgment:

The court held that the claims for the plaintiff were rejected because there is no proper contract between the plaintiff and the defendant mainly the contract has no proper consideration. Contract without consideration is void. The promissory has no personal benefit about the contract. The contract was done without the intention of the promissory. So the contract is void.

The post Consideration is of major essence in a contract appeared first on LexForti .

Simpkins Vs Pays

FACTS:

The plaintiff was living in the defendant’s house as a lodger for a year. He almost became a family member of the family circle of the defendant. The plaintiff, defendant, the defendant’s granddaughter used to send a separate entry on one coupon to the fashion competition which was appearing in the Sunday newspaper which was offered a prize amount for a successful winner. Each of the three provided forecasts and the coupon was filed up by the plaintiff consolidating three forecasts and was sent to the newspaper in the name of the defendant. The cost of the postage and entry were informally shared by all of them. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that any money that is to be worn on the coupon sent by them from time to time will be shared by them. The granddaughter of the defendant was however not present at the time when the arrangement to share the money was made, but the plaintiff and the defendant knew that she would join the arrangement. The coupon sent on 27/06/1954 based on the current forecast made by the defendant’s granddaughter fetched the price 750 pounds. The defendant who received the prize refused to pay 1/3rd of the price to the plaintiff on the ground that the arrangement to share the wining was arrived at in a family association and therefore it was not intended to give rise to legal consequences. so the plaintiff filed this suit to recover the money which was won by them.

ISSUES:

Whether the plaintiff is liable to get the winning money from the defendant?

PLAINTIFF CONTENTION:

The plaintiff contended that the defendant is liable to pay the winning money as there is a contract between them. As they agreed to share the money among them.

DEFENDANT CONTENTION:

The defendant contended that there is no contract between them so he is not liable to pay the money.

OBSERVATION:

The court observed that the initial amount was shared between them from that time itself there is an offer and that offer is accepted by them and the contract took place when the sent the shared money to the newspaper. The prize money declared and all the three should share the money. Now the defendant refused to give the money to the two-member which amount to a breach of contract. 

JUDGMENT:    

The court held that the defendant is liable to pay the prize money to the plaintiff which is 1/3rd ie 250 pounds. As there is a breach of contract.

The post An offer must be one capable of creating legal relationship between the parties appeared first on LexForti .

Hyde Vs Wrench

FACTS:

In this case, the defendant made an offer to the plaintiff that he is going to sell his house and his property for a sum of 1000 pounds. The offer was conveyed to the defendant. The plaintiff to whom the offer was made agreed to buy his house and his property for 950 pounds. The defendant refused to sell his property for 950 pounds. Subsequently, the plaintiff immediately communicated his acceptance for buying his property for 1000 pounds. When the defendant refused to sell his property the plaintiff filed a suit for breach of contract.

ISSUES:

Whether the act of the defendant amount to breach of contract or not?

PLAINTIFF CONTENTION:

The plaintiff contended that the act of the defendant who refused to sell his property after it is accepted by him is the amount to a breach of contract. And he should pay compensation or he should accept his acceptance to the offer.

DEFENDANT CONTENTION:

The defendant contended that it is only an invitation to offer and there is no contract took place been between the plaintiff and the defendant. So he is not liable to pay any compensation.

OBSERVATION:

The court observed that the plaintiff to whom the offer was made agreed to buy the property for 950 pounds it amount to counter-offer the counteroffer made by the plaintiff the original offer of the defendant has lapsed. Communication of acceptance by the telex of the offer at the old rates when the tender has offered a revised rate before the communication of the acceptance can not be said to conclude the contract. Although an offer made in response to the tender notice which is like an invitation to offer is accepted by the person inviting tender with certain modification the acceptance cannot be termed as a counteroffer. So no contact took place between them.

JUDGMENT:   

The court held that no contract took place as the offer here is just an invitation to everyone. So here the defendant refused to sell his property is not amount to a breach of contract. Hence he is not liable to pay compensation.

The post An offer lapses when it is rejeted or a counter offer is made appeared first on LexForti .