商法案例分析

LegalAnalysistoaCaseof“Caravan”GroupMembers:林潔純2013040283龍鈺2013040486張志梅2013040034ContentsFactsandanalysis 3Bernice’scounter-offer 3Curtis’invalidacceptance 3David’sfailureofacceptance 3Andrea’sacceptanceofBernice’soffer 3Curtis’svalidacceptance 4Andrea’srevocationofBernice’soffer 4Advicetoeachparty 5Tableofcases 5FactsandanalysisAndreadecidedtosellhercaravanatapriceof￡4,750ornear.Sosheparkeditoutsideherhousewithanoticewhichcontainspriceandphonenumberonthefrontwindscreen.Thenoticealsomentionsthatfirstpersonwhoagreesapricewillgetthecaravan.Bernice’scounter-offerOnMondayat9.00am,Bernicesawthenoticeanddecidedtobuy.Butasshewaslateforthedentist,sheTelephonedAndreafromworkat10.00amandmadeanofferof￡4,500.Andreaneededsometimetoconsider.SotheyreachedconsensusthatifAndreadidn’tcallBernicebefore9.00pmonMonday,theofferwouldcomeintoexistence.ThisofferhasclearlystatedtermsandalsoshowedAndrea’sintentiontodobusiness.Bernice,astheoffereecommunicatedtoAndreawhoistheofferor.Sothisbilateralofferisalegallybindingoffer.InHydevWrench(1840),theprincipleofcounter-offwasclearlyestablished.BernicedestroyedAndrea’soriginalofferbyhercounter-offerofareducedprice.Theoriginalofferwasrejecteditceasedtoexist.BerniceandAndreamadeanewofferofalowernewprice.Curtis’invalidacceptanceAt11.00amonMonday,CurtiscalledatAndrea’shouse,butFenella,Andrea’sdaughter,wastheonlypersonthere.Soheleftachequeof$4750andanoteforAndrea,whichaskedhertokeepthecaravanforhim.InPowellvLee(1908),theprincipalofcommunicationiseffectiveonlyifmadebyanauthorisedpersonwasestablished.AlthoughFenallaisAndrea’sdaughter,shehadnotbeenauthorisedtotakeCurtis’sacceptance.ThereforeCurtis’sacceptancewasnotvalidinthissituation,whichmeansthattherewasnocontractbetweenAndreaandCurtisatthattime.David’sfailureofacceptanceAt2.15pmonMonday,Davidpostedaletterofacceptanceandchequefor￡4,750byusingthepost-boxattheendoftheUnfortunaTely,theletterwasmisaddressedandarrivedonFriday.InAdamsvLindsell(1818),theprincipalofpostalrulewasestablished.WhenDavid’sletterofacceptancewasposted,acontractshouldcomeintoexistenceimmediaTely.However,onaccountofthethatthepostalruleonlyappliesiftheletterisproperlystamped,addressedandposted,andpostisareasonablemethodofcommunication,thepostalruledidnotapplybecauseofDavid’smisaddressing.Therefore,David’sacceptanceonMondaydidn’texist.Andrea’sacceptanceofBernice’sofferAt3.00pmonMonday,AndreaacceptedBernice’sofferbypostingalettertoherbusinessaddress.Intheletter,AndreaaskedBerniceifshecouldpayincash.InHydevWrench(1840),theprincipleofcounter-offwasclearlyestablished.Andrea’srequesttoBerniceofpayingincashdidn’tdestroythenewoffersoitwasnotacounter-off.InButlerMachineToolsLtdvEx-Cell-OLtd(1979,CA),theprincipleofacceptancemustbeamirrorimageoftheofferwasclearlyestablished.Andrea’srequestisnotacounter-off,sotheacceptanceisvalid.InImminghamStorageLtdvClearplc(2011),theprincipleofacceptancemustbeunconditionalwasestablished.Andrea’srequestwasirrelevanttothetermsoftheoffer,soheracceptanceisunconditional.InAdamsvLindsell(1818),theprincipalofpostalrulewasWhenAndrea’sletterofacceptancewasposted,acontractcameintoexistence.Fromtheanalysismentionedabove,wecanconcludethatAndrea’sacceptanceisvalidandtheofferlegallyexists.Curtis’svalidacceptanceAt9.30pmonMonday,AndreadecidedtotakeCurtisacceptanceassoonasshereadCurtis’snote.SinceAndreahadalreadyacceptedBernice’sofferbypostingalettertoher,sheimme