General Contract Concepts

In order for there to be an agreement or contract between two parties, there must first be an offer made. The offer must be made by the first party, then be accepted by the second party in order to constitute a financial transaction, agreement or contract. Offers can be made in the form of a written document, an oral message, or an implication as portrayed through conduct. The agreement is only in effect if the second party accepts the first party’s offer.

Zara and Her Kittens

According to the English case of Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425, which states that advertisements are not offers but rather invitations for offers, Zara takes the place of the second party. Her advertisement states that she has four Burmese kittens available for sale for £300 each. Xavier, the first party in this case, was intrigued by the invitation and made an offer to Zara, asking her to reserve the smallest kitten for him for three weeks. As the second party, Zara accepted this offer and awaited the promise of payment from Xavier. When Xavier did not return after three weeks, he was in breach of the agreement. If Zara had sold the reserved kitten before three weeks’ time had passed, it would have been Zara who was in breach of the agreement. Also, if Xavier had contacted Zara and nullified their verbal contract, the agreement would have been broken and no breech would have occurred.

In the case of Vic, an offer was made via written letter. However, because Zara did not receive the letter, she had no time to neither consider nor accept Vic’s offer. Vic sent Zara an email before Zara had ever become aware of his original, written offer and stated that he had decided against purchasing the kitten. As these correspondences arrived to Zara, she received the written letter stating the offer first, followed by the emailed correspondence revoking the offer. However, according to Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344, a written communication does not constitute revocation of an offer. Legally, it was Vic’s responsibility to provide verbal communication of his revoked offer. In these ways, Vic’s and Xavier’s cases are similar and both Vic and Xavier should be forced to uphold their originally posed offers.

In the case of Walter, Walter is the first party as he is the one who posited the offer to Zara. However, his offer was contingent, in his own opinion, on the veracity of the advertisement posted by Zara. According to Tamplin v James (1880) 15 Ch D 215, it is the responsibility of the first party to confirm or deny that the advertised sale is the same as the one he or she makes on offer towards. Because Walter did not confirm or deny the fact of the kitten’s breed until after the agreement had been made and a transaction had been completed, Walter forfeited his right to pull out of the agreement. However, Walter and Zara can enter into a new offer, acceptance and agreement in which Zara offers Walter £300, or any amount of her choosing, in exchange for the cat, thereby effectively reversing the transaction. Zara is not responsible, however, for any damages Walter has suffered.

Amy and Her Cousin

It is important, first, to recognize that there are three separate offers and agreements in consideration: a) that of Amy and David; b) that of Amy and Beryl; and c) that of Amy and Charlie. First, Amy offers David £1,000 provided that he a) works hard and b) obtains a second class degree. According to Thomas v. Thomas (1842) 2 Q.B. 851, 114 E.R. 330, because neither party suffered, there is no consideration of any terms. Amy does not suffer from David working more or less diligently and David did not suffer from not attaining a second class degree. Therefore the issue of Amy and David is moot.

According to the Court of Appeal in Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669, when an offer of payment comes after the work has already been completed, the consideration phase of the contract is forfeited and past consideration is not valid. Therefore, Amy is in no way legally bound to provide the £300 to Beryl as back payment for past services. If Beryl had wished to be paid for her services, Beryl would have needed to make a proper contract with Amy before carrying out Amy’s errands for her. Since there was no agreement established before the action was completed, Beryl forfeits any right to make a contract based on past actions.

In the final case, Amy agrees to lower the amount Charlie owes her from £2,000 to £1,500 and Charlie pays the newly agree upon amount. According to Pinnel’s Case 1602 5 Rep. 117 of the Court of Common Pleas, there are two separate actions at play in the case of Amy and Charlie. There is the first action is a contract in which Amy agreed to loan Charlie £2,000 under the condition that he pay her back. The second action is that Amy has offered to reduce Charlie’s debt by £500. However, this second action is one that has no power to affect the first contract because there is no give-and-take. Charlie is not losing from this second action; he is only gaining. If Amy had requested that the debt amount be lowered to £1,500 in exchange for Charlie performing certain chores for Amy, there would be an offer, a consideration and an agreement. However, this is not the case and therefore the original contract serves as the reasonable standard.

If Charlie were to pay Amy the remaining £500, the only item that would change is that the original contract between Charlie and Amy would be complete as Charlie had competed his end of the agreement, that is, repaying Amy at a later date.

In the cases of both Zara and Amy, both of the main characters discussed end up on the favorable side of the law. Unfortunately, the other characters end up not getting the outcome for which they had hoped.