International Review Of Law And Economics -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The International Review Of Law And Economics? Answer: Introducation The case is based on the formation of contract. Contract is a legally binding agreement where both the parties are liable to each other to complete the terms of the contract. Under the business Law, it has been mentioned that offer and acceptance are the two main base of contract and if the offer and acceptance are made legally, the contract will be formed in between the parties. However, there are certain exceptions to the principle of offer. These exceptions are classified as invitation to treat, requests for information and statements of intention (Calavita 2016). These terms are apparently looks like offer but there are certain differences in between offer and invitation to treat. In this case, a thorough study will be done on the different aspects of contract and the process of formation of contract as well. Additionally, certain remarkable case studies have been made to strengthen the base of the approaches. Rules: The main issue of the given case study is based on the principle of invitation to treat and it is required to be considered whether a contract in between Sam and Danny has been formed or not. There are certain differences have been present in between offer and invitation to treat. If the offer has been accepted by the other party, it will form a contract. However, different situation is being created in case of invitation to treat (Yadav 2016). According to Andrew Burrow, the term invitation to treat denotes a readiness to negotiate (Burrows 2016). Therefore, if a person makes an invitation to treat, it does not mean that he is willing to sell the product and no contract will form on the basis of that (Hay and Proctor 2015). In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots[1953] 1 QB 401, it has been observed by the learned Judges that any poster or banner in any shop is a good example of invitation to treat. The summary of this case reveals that an advertisement or poster cannot b e termed as an offer as such advertisement does not make the customers to purchase the thing, but invite to take the goods to certain levels of negotiation where the offer or acceptance will take place. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, where it has been observed that an offering made by a person regarding certain goods or things could not be treated as an offer and the person who marketing the statement is not bound to sell the proposed thing. According to Lord Parker, advertisements are generally cannot be treated as offer except in certain cases (Poole 2016). Exception to the rule of advertisement has been observed in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, where the company had made a statement in the newspaper to pay certain amount to the person who will be affected by the smoke balls. In that case, the court held that the company is bound to pay the amount to the affected person. In Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, it has been observed that if in a shop , a picture of knife has been displayed for sale, it does not resembles that the shop is contravening the legislation for not to sale offensive weapon. In Payne v Cave [1789] it has been stated that a call for bid is an invitation to treat and not an offer. In Australia, there are certain rules provided to make an advertisement through electronic transmitted mediums such as email or message. However, it has been stated that the advertisement or mere statements made by the person could not be termed as an offer, but invitation to treat and the maker will not be liable to sell the products to the other interested persons. Under the Electronic Transaction Act 1999, it has been stated that contract can also be made through email, but such contract should have to maintain all the essentials of the contract such as there should be an offer and acceptance to the offer taken place (Grigsby 2016). Further, an intention to create legal relationship should be present and the terms and conditio ns of the contract should be legal in nature (Whish and Bailey 2015). In the absence of any elements, the process could not be regarded as contract. Application: In this present case, it has been observed that Sam has a laptop which he wants to sell. He has made an advertisement through the online sale and made an advertisement. Danny was interested and replied it back to Sam and wanted to inspect the proposed laptop of Sam. Therefore, it can be cleared from the above mentioned topic that Sam had no intention to place the offer to Danny as he had posted a general advertisement in internet. After the inspection, Danny found certain scratches but willing to buy the product because of its affordable price. However, it has been observed that Sam had sold the product to other in lieu of Danny. According to the principle of Partridges case, it can be stated that Sam had no intention to sell the laptop to Danny and he had not made any promise regarding the said product to Danny. Sam had made a general post in the internet and Danny was one of the interested parties. The same thing has also been mentioned by Sam On the basis of above mentioned rules, it can be stated that no contract was formed in between Sam and Danny. In the given case, the docket given to Jane has certain exclusion clauses prescribed in the backside of it. Exclusion clause is a term that restricts a party to the contract to claim damage from the others. Exclusion clause is an example of unfair term and it helps a party to the contract to get rid of their liability (Howells and Weatherill 2017). Under the common law system, these clauses are included under the provision of Unfair Contract Terms Act. There are certain rules prescribed for the application of exclusion clause. In Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 K.B. 532, it has been observed that the terms of the clauses should be brought into the notice of the other party at the time of making the contract. If one party did not inform about the task to other, such terms should not be a part of the contract and could not be regarded as an accepted term. In Box 3LEstrange v F Graucob Ltd[1934] 2 KB 394, it has been observed that if a party has signed a document, whether or not come across the terms of the clauses, will be held liable. However, in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning[1951] 1 KB 805, it has been stated that if the authority had misrepresented the facts regarding exclusion clauses, the matter should not be treated as an effective clause in spite of the other party put his consent over the matter. In case of Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41, it has been determined by the court that if the parties do not act In this case, Jane had put her signature on the docket, but legally the document is ineffective as the authority had misrepresented the facts in order to gain the consent of Jane. It can be learnt from the facts of the case that before put her sign on the document, Jane had come across the clauses mentioned at the back of the docket. Therefore, she was aware of the facts that in case of any loss, the laundry will not be held responsible. Therefore, according to the general rule, the signing party know the facts regarding the exclusion clauses and in case of any adverse situation, that party could not able to claim any damage. However, there are certain exceptions to the rule. It has been observed that on asking about the validity of the clauses, the laundry authority had misrepresented about the facts and stated that the clauses are not applicable on the colour of the product but on the button of the dress. Jane was satisfied after hearing the insurance given by the authority and put signature on the docket. However, on the returning day, it has been observed that the colour of the dress has been fade away. According to the decision of Curtis v Chemical Cleani ng[1951] 1 KB 805, it can be stated that the terms of the exclusion clauses will not be applied in this case as the facts were misrepresented to the party by the authority (Lando 2016). Further, according to the provision of Unfair Contract Terms, the clauses of exclusion will be imposed if they are reasonable in nature. However, there is no specific definition of reasonable grounds. It is depending on circumstances. If the clauses are not clearly mentioned, the provision of exclusion clause will not be applied. Therefore, it can be stated that in case of any vague terms and conditions, the clause will not be applied. The words printed on the back of the docket were not clear in nature. When Jane was attempted to put her signature on the docket, she found certain clauses mentioned at the back side of the docket. It was mentioned that the employees will not be held liable for any losses or damages regarding the cloth. Such wordings are vague as what types of losses were not mentioned there. As a result, Jane did not understand what kinds of losses are being included under the clause and a complex situation has been cropped up therefore. In Kudos Catering (UK) Ltd v Manchester Central Convention Complex Ltd, it has been observed that the wordings of exclusion clauses should be clear. Jane has certain rights regarding the colour fade of her dress. There are certain conditions mentioned behind the docket and as the terms are ambiguous in nature, Jane did not understand the terms. She had asked the employee and the employee told that the accounting clauses are applied in case of the button and not in case of colour or any other cases. However, the dress had been handed over to her; she noticed that the colour of the dress had been faded away. At this situation, Jane has certain rights that can be applied against the laundry: Jane can file a case against the laundry for spoiling her cloths; Jane can claim damage from the authority; Jane can file case under misrepresentation. In the given case, Jane had to sign the docket where the exclusion clauses were prescribed and as per the case of Curtis, the laundry authority cannot enjoy the benefits of the exclusion clause as the wordings of the clauses were not clear and Jane was victim of misrepresentation of facts. However, in case she did not sign any docket, the authority can take the plea of exclusion clause if sufficient notice regarding the clauses will serve to her. Therefore, the terms of the clauses were needed to be cleared and specified (Lawson 2017). Reference: Barton, R.J., 2016. Drowning in a Sea of Contract: Application of the Economic Loss Rule to Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims.Wm. Mary L. Rev.,41, p.1789. Burrows, A., 2016.A restatement of the English law of contract. Oxford University Press. Calavita, K., 2016.Invitation to law and society: An introduction to the study of real law. University of Chicago Press. Grigsby, L.L. ed., 2016.Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution. CRC press. Hay, D.B. and Proctor, M., 2015. Concept maps which visualise the artifice of teaching sequence: Cognition, linguistic and problem-based views on a common teaching problem.Knowledge Management E-Learning: An International Journal (KMEL),7(1), pp.36-55. Howells, G. and Weatherill, S., 2017.Consumer protection law. Routledge. Lando, H., 2016. Optimal rules of negligent misrepresentation in insurance contract law.International Review of taxation-law and Economics,46, pp.70-77. Lawson, R.G., 2017.Exclusion clauses and unfair contract terms. Sweet Maxwell. Mcdermott, P.A., 2017.Contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing. Poole, J., 2016.Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press. Whish, R. and Bailey, D., 2015.Competition law. Oxford University Press, USA. Wilkinson-Ryan, T. and Hoffman, D.A., 2015. The common sense of contract formation.Stan. L. Rev.,67, p.1269. Yadav, P.K., 2016. Formation of Contract: A Comparative Study of India and USA. Young, N., Lewis, J.R. and Lee, J.F., 2015. Insurance Contract Interpretation: Issues and Trends.Ins. Lj, p.71