The law of contract
A contract intends to formalize an agreement between two or more parties, in relation to a particular subject. Contracts can cover an extremely broad range of matters, including the sale of goods or real property, the terms of employment or of an independent contractor relationship, the settlement of a dispute, and ownership of intellectual property developed as part of a work for hire.
Intention to create legal relations | | |
plus | | |
Agreement | | (i) Offer |
| | plus |
| | (ii) Acceptance |
plus | | |
Consideration (informal contracts) | | |
Advise Sanjeev regarding the advertisement
Sanjeev made an offer in the ...view middle of the document...
Advise Sanjeev regarding Ken
Sanjeev made an offer to Ken by places an advertisement in the Borneo Post. The offer is promissory in its nature because of the words “Ken reads the Borneo Post and leaves a voicemail for Sanjeev, “I really want this MP3, I will give you $55 for it. Call me.”It is not a valid acceptance because Sanjeev didn’t communicate with Ken and the term of the offer didn’t have specified a particular method of acceptance. And acceptance is deemed only to have occurred when it is successfully communicated to the offeror.
For example: Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation  2 QB 327
Lord Denning concleded in Entores that: “…the rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from the rule about the post. The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror; and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received.”
Advise Sanjeev regarding Tracey
Sanjeev made an offer to Tracey by leaving a message on her answer phone, “You can have my MP3 player for $45.Ring me and it’s yours.” The offer is promissory in its nature because of the words “You can have my MP3 player for $45.Ring me and it’s yours.” It is an acceptance.
Acceptance made or by fax or telex is considered instantaneous as long as the message is actually received at the offeree’s end.
For example, Brinkibon Ltd v Sthalwharenhandelsgesellschaft  2 AC 34
It is not yet clear whether the above was intended to be a hard and fast rule to be applied generally or whether new situations such as fax communications or e-mail or internet transactions should be dealt with on their own merits. There is some support for the latter view in Lord Wilberforce’s judgement (obiter ) in Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl  2 AC 34, where it was indicated that the court cannot make universal rules to cover all cases concerning the effect of technology on communications.
According to Lord Wilberforce: ”...they must be resolved by reference to the intentions of the parties, by sound business practice and in some cases by a judgement where the risks should lie...”
Advise Sanjeev regarding Stellar Music Shop
Sanjeev made an offer to Stellar Music Shop by writes to Stellar Music Shop, “I am willing to sell you a Sony MP3 player in excellent condition for $50.Please write back quickly...