Are Verbal Offers a Binding Contract?

A contract that has the capability to be enforced must be comprised of an offer, an acceptance of offer, and consideration. Although offers could be implied through conduct, oral, or written, the offeror must be provided acceptance otherwise no contract would be developed.

Zara and her Kittens

The advertisement Zara had regarding the sale of her kittens fail to signify an offer. Instead, her advertisement serves as an invitation for offers (Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425), which does not constitute a binding contract and therefore cannot be accepted. Zara alleged that Xavier made a sound offer as he informed Zara of the kitten he wanted and claimed he would return. Zara accepted his offer and set Xavier’s desired kitten aside and he assured Zara he would be right back. Since Xavier did not return, he breached the contract that was previously established. Typically, as time passes it may represent an annulment especially in the sale of kittens because the lapse of time could dictate the difference between selling a kitten and a full-grown cat. Yet, Zara was not led to believe that Xavier’s offer had been canceled. Xavier could plausibly argue that his offer was canceled when he failed to return for the kitten, but this should have been communicated to Zara (Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344).

Zara and Yvonne’s situation exemplified an offer and an acceptance. Yvonne’s initial offer of 200 was rejected by Zara. Zara counteroffered at 300. Since Zara rejected Yvonne’s offer, her offer was null and replaced with a new offer (Zara’s counteroffer). Thereafter, Yvonne accepts the counteroffer and a contract is made (Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132).

Zara and Walter developed a contract but there was no communication about the breed of the kitten. Since Zara did not disclose that information to the purchaser, she misrepresented the kittens (With v O'Flanagan [1936] Ch 575). In accordance with Tamplin v. James, a buyer that fails to exercise due diligence to either confirm or deny an uncertainty in the item description the buyer must bear the consequences. Zara’s misrepresentation as being fraudulent, innocent, intentional, or negligent will govern Walter’s recovery as deemed appropriate by the court.

Amy and her Cousin

Amy’s promise to David does not constitute a binding contract as the consideration entails that David will successfully attain a second class degree through hard work. No benefit to Amy and the lack of detriment to David serve as the underlying framework of a contract, consideration. Therefore, the insignificance of David attaining a second class degree while working less is insignificant (Thomas v. Thomas, 1842).

Amy’s promise to compensate Beryl for work previously done failed to denote a valid consideration or contract, so Amy does not have to pay (Re: McArdle, Ch669, Court of Appeal). Since consideration must be attached to the contract in which performance begins after the contract, past performance is not entitled to payment. Therefore, Beryl cannot hold Amy responsible for her promise of payment as Amy is not contractually obligated to pay (Roscorla v. Thomas (1842); Eastwood v. Kenyon (1840); R. v. Clark (1927)).

Amy and Charlie’s situation is not an enforceable contract, so the promise to pay a lower amount owed under the same terms of another agreement is replaced with the promise to release the debt in its entirety (Pinnel's Case 1602 5 Rep, 117 Court of Common Pleas). If Amy’s request for a partial payment was to be paid sooner than the partial payment and agreement to release the debt in full is binding (Pinnel's Case 1602 5 Rep, 117 Court of Common Pleas). If Charlie paid Amy the balance he owed then Amy would have to release the debt in full. Moreover, Beryl would not be able to collect payment for past performance and Amy would not be responsible for paying for David’s attainment of his second class degree.