Issues:

Is Bob in a valid contract with Mike, Tom, Steve, and Capital Motors for the transaction
with each party?

Laws:
An agreement between parties which is enforced by a law is known as contract. The essentials of
the valid contract are Agreement, Intention to be legally bound and consideration, rest of three
elements are Capacity, Consent and legality. An agreement first essential exists by
communication between two parties however it must be verbally, written or by actions which
includes offer and acceptance where an agreement enters into a contract. In the process the one
who makes offer known as offeror and one who accepts the offer known as offeree. Very
authoritative liability rise when each party really agrees to enter into contract. It implies they
should have genuine goal to really offer or acceptance. The agreement law requires to address
the subject of what happens if an anybody appears to consent to something regardless of the
possibility that party don't generally expect to concur or impart assertion by slip-up or blunder.
The law needs to deal with the issue that it is hard to tell what is in another person's mind.
Subsequently, the court receive a target approach in deciding if there host been offer or
acknowledgment between parties. In a perfect world legally binding obligation ought to emerge
just when each party really consents to go into a contract (that is, has subjective aim to offer or
acceptance), the law needs to address the topic of what happens if a man shows up to consent to
something regardless of the possibility that they dont really mean to concur or impart
understanding in mistake. At the end of the day, the law needs to manage the issue postured by
the way that it is difficult to tell what is in another persons mind. Hence, the courts embrace a
target approach in deciding if there has been offer and acceptance ie, they ask whether a
sensible individual watching the direct of the offeror or the offeree would trust that they were
making an offer or giving acknowledgment. As shown in Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
at 607 (CSU LAW504 Modules , 2017)
The offeror may revoke the offer regardless of the possibility that he has expressed that the offer
will stay open until a specific date or time .The main exemption to this is if the offeror and
offeree have gone into a different contract called an alternative contract, whereby the offeror has
paid the offeree something, and the offeror has consented to leave the offer open for a specific
period. Given in Byrne & Co v Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344. Offer infers readiness to
contract while, acceptance must be without condition. Be that as it may, even now if there is any
condition exist then it is considered a "Counter Offer" which is not acknowledged as it is a
dismissal of original offer and counter offer turns out to be new offer (CSU LAW504 Modules ,
2017)
With the goal to be in valid contract the party to whom the offer has been made must accept the
offer and that must be discussed to the offeror (subject to the special case identifying with offers
to the world examined previously). For the most part, acceptance can be conveyed by any
methods, independent of how the offer was imparted. In any case, if a specific way of acceptance
is required then it must be agreed to an inability to consent will render the indicated acceptance
invalid. (CSU LAW504 Modules , 2017)

MoinBhai Vahora Student Id: 11615219 Page 1

Second essential which is intention to be legally bound which is required by the law as evidence
that the both parties are intended to make the legally binding agreement. Without proof, the law
presumes that the parties proposed to be lawfully bound by business or business understandings,
however did not expect to be legitimately bound by family, residential or social assertions.
Nonetheless, these assumptions can be disproved by proof in actuality. The ordinary position is
that business assertions are attempted to be contracts. However, honour clauses in business
understandings can invalidate the assumption that lawful connections were proposed. (CSU
LAW504 Modules , 2017)
An agreement for the supply of tissue paper stated: This arrangement is not entered into ...as a
formal or legal agreement...but is only a record of the purpose and intention of the ...parties...to
which they each honourably pledge themselves...that it will be carried through...with mutual
loyalty and friendly cooperation. The agreement was terminated without the required period of
notice; and the plaintiff (tissue manufacturer) sued for breach of contract. The court held that no
contract existed - only an arrangement binding in an honorable pledge from which all legal
consequences were excluded. It should however be noted that statutory provisions regulating
contracts, such in State Sale of Goods Acts and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
cannot be evaded simply by the parties stating that their agreement is not a contract. If the
agreement is clearly a contract as meant in such legislation, the legislation will apply. (CSU
LAW504 Modules , 2017)
An agreement for the supply of tissue paper expressed. This course of action is not gone into as a
formal or legitimate agreement but is just a record of the reason and goal of the parties to which
they each respectably promise themselves that it will be conveyed through with common
unwaveringness and well disposed cooperation. The contract was ended without the required
time of notice and the offended party (tissue maker) sued for rupture of agreement. The court
held that no agreement existed - just a plan authoritative in a fair vow from which every single
legitimate outcome was prohibited. It ought to however be noticed that statutory arrangements
directing contracts, such in State Sale of Goods Acts and the Competition and Consumer Act
2010 (Cth) can't be dodged essentially by the gatherings expressing that their assertion is not an
agreement. On the off chance that the understanding is obviously an agreement as implied in
such enactment, the enactment will apply. Given in Rose & Frank Co v. J. R. Crompton & Bros
Ltd [1925] AC 445 (CSU LAW504 Modules , 2017)
The last essential of valid contract Consideration which says each party must guarantee to give
the other party something of significant worth to for the consent to be an agreement. The
guarantee can be to offer something, to accomplish something or even not to accomplish
something. So for instance, A promises to give Mobile to B and B promises to Pay $ 600. Nestle
& Co. offered buyers of its chocolates that they would sell them a music record in return for 1
shilling and sixpence and three chocolate bar wrappers, as a major aspect of a publicizing effort.
Under copyright law, the holder of the copyright in the record (Chappell and Co Ltd) was
qualified for a sovereignty of 6.25% of the selling cost of the record. Were eminences owed on 1
shilling and sixpence or 1 shilling and sixpence or more the estimation of 3 wrappers (which
were for the most part discarded as having no esteem, yet which Nestle had clearly benefitted
from, in light of the fact that clients needed to purchase a chocolate to get a wrapper). The court
held that eminences were payable on the estimation of 1 shilling and 6 pence + 3 wrappers. The
court said that the wrappers had some esteem, regardless of the possibility that that was little, and

MoinBhai Vahora Student Id: 11615219 Page 2

this must be incorporated into the figuring of the eminences since they were a piece of the
thought that Nestle had gotten from its clients. Shown in Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle & Co
[1960] AC 87. (CSU LAW504 Modules , 2017)

Application:
In the first case of Bob, Bob receives an Email from Mike dated on 1 January as offer Bob
replied on 2 January that he is not accepting the offer making a condition which is considered as
COUNTER OFFER so the original offer rejected automatically as Bob made the condition. The
same counter offer rejected by the Mike on 3 January by email reply. On 5 January Bob tried to
accept the first offer of 1 January but it cannot be accepted because the offer is not valid because
it is expired.
In the second case of Bob, On 10 January Bob sends the letter to Tom of offer of requesting hard
drives by the POST Tom accepts the offer by saying ok he will supply the same by post on 12
January, while on 14 January Bob sends an email for cancelling the offer where as Bob receives
the acceptance of offer on 15 January by post. And as per the POSTAL RULE Bob cannot
revoke the offer as offer accepted on 12 January.
In the third case, Bob promised Steve to buy computer to him because Steve used to took care of
the Bobs cat in the past time period. Later on Bob changes his promise to buy computer for
Steve. As it known that PAST CONSIDERATION is not acceptable Bob is not liable to buy
computer for Steve as the Promise considered as Past Consideration.
In forth and last case, the valid contract established between Bob & Capital Motors. Although
Bobs sent the signed contract by mistake to the Mary the contract is valid and Bob has to
perform the liability of contract because it is signed by the Bob and when Capital Motors
receives and reads the contract they believes that Bob accepted offer and valid contract
established.

Conclusion:
So as we discussed applications of Laws of valid contract on the cases of Bob in the first case
there is not valid contract between Bob and Mike so Mike is not liable to perform any liability.
In second case Bob must pay the order amount as the contract cannot be revoked with tom. The
third case is about past consideration so Bob is not liable to buy computer to Steve. In last case
Bob must buy the vehicle from the Capital motors as Bob sent the signed letter to the Capital
motors.

In the case of Bob and Mike Jones, Mike does not hass to pay $ 9000 to Bob as there is no valid
contract between them. In the second case Bob Must pay $ 10000 to Tom because there is a valid
contract as revocation is not accepted after acceptance. In the third case, Bob does not need to
give computer to Steve as past consideration is not valid for contract. In the last case Bob has to
purchase delivery van from Capital Motors and liable to pay $ 33000 to the Capital Motors.

MoinBhai Vahora Student Id: 11615219 Page 3

Cases Referred:

Byrne & Co v Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344

Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle & Co [1960] AC 87.
Rose & Frank Co v. J. R. Crompton & Bros Ltd [1925] AC 445
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607

Bibliography

(2017). CSU LAW504 Modules . In Topic 5 (pp. 40-51).

MoinBhai Vahora Student Id: 11615219 Page 4