Contract
Maggie owned a pet whereby she placed an advertisement in a local newspaper intending to sell the pet for £150. Nelson saw the advertisement and called Maggie, as she had indicated that interested buyers should contact her. Communication between them failed since Maggie did not answer the phone call. However, Nelson left a voicemail declaring his willingness to buy the pet.
Advice
Considering the above facts, it must be established if there is a binding contract between the two parties. In applying the rule in Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893], it appears that Maggie’s advertisement was just an invitation to treat. On the other hand, Nelson made an offer to Maggie that was never accepted since there was no communication of acceptance by Maggie. An offer must be accepted, and the offeree must notify the offeror of their acceptance. The reason why the advertisement cannot amount to an offer is that the advertisement was made to the public as an invitation to make offers. Contrary to the circumstances in Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company above, Maggie’s advert didn't amount to an offer.
A contract cannot be enforced without both an offer and an acceptance. Additionally, the offeror must be informed of the acceptance. Offer and acceptance are the basic elements of a valid contract. Additionally, no consideration was paid by Nelson. He only made an offer whose acceptance was not communicated.
Conclusion
Having established the above, both Maggie and Nelson are not bound, as no contract capable of being enforced was made. In the circumstances of this case, Nelson would withdraw his offer before acceptance by Maggie. An offer may be withdrawn before acceptance (Carper & Mckinsey, 2012). This was set out in Dickinson v. Dodds [1876]. Assuming that Maggie accepted the offer after receiving the voicemail, the acceptance would be good in law if it was made and communicated to Nelson within a reasonable time. Acceptance of an offer must be communicated within a reasonable time (Pillai & Bagavathi, 2011).
Tort
Facts
The facts of this case are that Marge and Homer ordered pizza and a bottle of wine from Café Express. After taking the wine, they discovered a decomposing insect. Consequently, both fell sick and were rushed to the hospital. Though they purchased the wine from Café Express, the wine manufacturer of the wine was Blooming Wines.
Advice
The facts of this case closely resemble the facts in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], where Mrs. Stevenson found a decomposing snail in her bottle of ginger beer. In this case, the court observed that the plaintiff had suffered injuries due to the manufacturer's negligence. This case is the basis for the manufacturer’s duty of care to consumers. It is therefore clear that Marge and Homer were owed a duty of care by Blooming Wines, and that duty has been violated.
Conclusion
Due to the above, Marge and Homer have a course of action and can sue for damages. Manufacturers are held liable for injuries caused to consumers due to their negligent acts (Alexander, McLennan, and Cappuccilli, 1991).
Bibliography
PILLAI, R. S., & BAGAVATHI. (2011). Legal aspects of business: Mercantile laws including industrial and company laws. New Delhi, S Chand.
CARPER, D. L., & MCKINSEY, J. A. (2012). Understanding the law. Mason, Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning.
Alexander, D., McLennan, N. and Cappuccilli, E. (1991). Global competitiveness of U.S. advanced-technology manufacturing industries: pharmaceuticals. Washington, D.C.: U.S. International Trade Commission.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Ratings
