Scots Law of Contract

All of the case studies argon implicated with the fair play of Contract, finicky propositionally the formation of a bless and the differences amongst an invitation to turn to and a bundle. We will investigate each consumerss peculiar(prenominal) pore or lack thereof someonely and advise Bruce on his statutory position. A thrust is an agreement between two or more parties which in Scotland does non need to take a detail form, as a spoken agreement is still equally as enforceable as a written get under ones skin in plastered circumstances such as in most social and interior(prenominal) arrangements.A bring creates a lawfully binding bond between the parties involved. Contracts be make everyday sometimes without even realising it from buying a deep brown to buying a house. A contract is formed bi posteriorally when an quip has been unconditionally go fored by all parties involved leading to consensus in idem and is non to be confused with a promise which is a slanted agreement requiring lonesome(prenominal) one party to make the promise. In Bruces case some of the customers mentioned have non real entered into a contract but preferably have either authoritative an bear or an invitation to take.An fling unlike a contract is not jurally enforceable but preferably an invitation to enter into a contract and an invitation to deal is not an conjure but rather an invitation to make an base on balls. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic heap orchis Company (1893) The Carbolic lot lout Company released an advertisement stating that a ? 100 reward would be gainful to any person who contracted influenza, colds or any disease caused by taking cold, after(prenominal)(prenominal) having used the ball three times cursory for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.Despite the claims one of the companies customers Mrs Carlill caught the flu and sued the Carbolic Smoke egg Company for the ? 100 they refused to dedicate her stating that their advert was in fact a de jure binding contract which she had hopeed by purchasing the product. The preceding(prenominal) case could be applied to Bruce as his failure to properly invoke the conditions in his advertisement will result in him having to honor his accredited promise of lead astraying the Slow Patrol CD to as some customers as ave a flyer at the footing pleadd on the advert. Although most modern adverts argon do byed as an invitation to treat this extra advert would be considered a one-sided promise as Bruce has promised to shift the CD to anyone who produces the flyer at the toll of ? 1. 99. Unlike an pop the question a promise is the product of one persons intention and no acceptance is undeniable to create a binding contract where as an continue finish be revoked until agreed upon.If Bruce had not put such particular proposition ground in the advert simply contributeing the product at the unlawful price he cou ld have claimed it was an invitation to treat but as it stands Bruce is jurally obligated to follow through with his coloured promise. To quote the court in regards to Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life bureau Corporation (1909) when a general invite addressed to the public is appropriated to himself by a distinct acceptance by one person, then it is to be read in exactly the same was as if it had been addressed to the private authoritatively. In the case of savage and eat v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Forfar sent a telefax to Wolf & Wolf unfolding to handle potatoes at a specific price but the offer was and valid until 5pm the next day Wolf & Wolf replied accepting the offer but with extra conditions to which Forfar did not accept and when Wolf & Wolf later tried to accept the superior offer there was no solution by Forfar and the potatoes were not sent. Wolf & Wolf sued arguing that Forfar were in respite of contract.The court held that Wolf & Wolfs send-off acc eptance was a foreknow offer and due to the law in Scotland this had rejected Forfars offer and put in place a new offer which Forfar had rejected as Forfars offer had pass alongd upon rejection Wolf & Wolfs second attempt at accepting the victor offer could not result in a contract being do as it was a new offer which Forfar had chosen not to accept therefore no contract existed between the parties.The area of law c one timerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and riposte offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) promptly links to the case between Bruce and ken. As Bruce is at once again relations with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legitimate debt instrument to plow spate the lofty vinyl at the original price of ? 40. When Ken rejected he original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruces o riginal offer to kick the bucket and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new foothold, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapse. When Ken came back insisting that there was a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had sink and no contract existed between then.In the case of Fisher v bell (1961) a shopkeeper had displayed a flick- wound in his window with a price tag next to it but under the restriction of foetid Weapons Accontents Restriction of slimy Act (1959) it was illegal to sell hire or offer to sell or hire any lingua which had a blade that opened automatically, on December 12 1959 the shopkeeper was brought to audition alleging that the defendant had broken the law by offering to sell the stab in his shop.The shopkeeper was acquitted on the basis that by displaying the lingua it was an invitation to treat and n ot an offer to sell. In regard to Stella we are once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically relating to an invitation to treat rather than an offer. When Stella was trying to purchase the CD for the advertised price of ? 1. 39 sooner of ? 13. 99 she in fact had no legal authority to do so as the price offered was an invitation to treat and not a contract but rather an invitation to enter into one.The contract is not created until a price is agreed and the circumstance has been stipendiary for. Stella is basically making Bruce and offer to hire ? 1. 39 for the CD as that is what it has been advertised as and by Bruce not accepting the offer due to a mislabeling issue a contract has not been formed. As in the case of Fisher v price (1961) just because there is a price tag next to an item or on an item the establishment is under no obligation to sell at said price.In conclusion in regard to the premier(prenominal) legal question Bruce is legally bound to sell the A lbum at the price stated in the advert as it was a colored promise which is legally binding contract and not able to be revoked like a offer. In regards to Ken after he counter offered Bruces original offer to buy the grand vinyl Bruce was no longer under any legal obligation to sell the rare album to Ken as the offer had lapsed meaning no contract was in place.Finally Stella is unable to take legal action against Bruce and Bruce does not have to sell the CD to Stella at the advertised price and it was an invitation to treat and not an offer and although the two are similar when dealing with an invitation to treat rather than an offer there is no liability to accept. CITATIONS Carlill v Carbolic Smoke globe Company (1893) Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life impudence Corporation (1909) Fisher v bell shape (1961) BIBLIOGRAPHY Black, G (Editor) Business Law in Scotland second edition Crossan & Wylie Introductory Scots Law second e ditionScots Law of ContractAll of the case studies are touch with the Law of Contract, specifically the formation of a contract and the differences between an invitation to treat and a contract. We will investigate each consumerss specific contract or lack thereof individually and advise Bruce on his legal position. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which in Scotland does not need to take a specific form, as a spoken agreement is still equally as enforceable as a written contract in plastered circumstances such as in most social and domesticated arrangements.A contract creates a legally binding bond between the parties involved. Contracts are made everyday sometimes without even realising it from buying a cocoa to buying a house. A contract is formed bilaterally when an offer has been unconditionally accepted by all parties involved leading to consensus in idem and is not to be confused with a promise which is a unilateral agreement requiring only one party to make the promise. In Bruces case some of the customers mentioned have not truly entered into a contract but rather have either authorized an offer or an invitation to treat.An offer unlike a contract is not legally enforceable but rather an invitation to enter into a contract and an invitation to treat is not an offer but rather an invitation to make an offer. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company released an advertisement stating that a ? 100 reward would be paid to any person who contracted influenza, colds or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times day by day for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.Despite the claims one of the companies customers Mrs Carlill caught the flu and sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company for the ? 100 they refused to pay her stating that their advert was in fact a legally binding contract which she had accepted by purchasing th e product. The to a higher place case could be applied to Bruce as his failure to properly state the conditions in his advertisement will result in him having to honor his original promise of selling the Slow Patrol CD to as legion(predicate) customers as ave a flyer at the price stated on the advert. Although most modern adverts are treated as an invitation to treat this particular advert would be considered a unilateral promise as Bruce has promised to sell the CD to anyone who produces the flyer at the price of ? 1. 99. Unlike an offer a promise is the product of one persons intention and no acceptance is compulsory to create a binding contract where as an offer canful be revoked until agreed upon.If Bruce had not put such specific terms in the advert simply offering the product at the misemploy price he could have claimed it was an invitation to treat but as it stands Bruce is legally obligated to follow through with his unilateral promise. To quote the court in regards to Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life authorization Corporation (1909) when a general offer addressed to the public is appropriated to himself by a distinct acceptance by one person, then it is to be read in exactly the same was as if it had been addressed to the individual originally. In the case of Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Forfar sent a telefax to Wolf & Wolf offering to sell potatoes at a specific price but the offer was only valid until 5pm the next day Wolf & Wolf replied accepting the offer but with extra conditions to which Forfar did not accept and when Wolf & Wolf later tried to accept the original offer there was no result by Forfar and the potatoes were not sent. Wolf & Wolf sued arguing that Forfar were in fracture of contract.The court held that Wolf & Wolfs first acceptance was a counter offer and due to the law in Scotland this had rejected Forfars offer and put in place a new offer which Forfar had rejected as Forfars offer had lapsed upon re jection Wolf & Wolfs second attempt at accepting the original offer could not result in a contract being made as it was a new offer which Forfar had chosen not to accept therefore no contract existed between the parties.The area of Law concerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and counter offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) right away links to the case between Bruce and Ken. As Bruce is once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legal obligation to sell Ken the rare vinyl at the original price of ? 40. When Ken rejected he original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruces original offer to lapse and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new terms, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapsed. When Ken came back insisting that there wa s a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had lapsed and no contract existed between then.In the case of Fisher v toll (1961) a shopkeeper had displayed a flick-knife in his window with a price tag next to it but under the restriction of Offensive Weapons Accontents Restriction of Offensive Act (1959) it was illegal to sell hire or offer to sell or hire any knife which had a blade that opened automatically, on December 12 1959 the shopkeeper was brought to trial run alleging that the defendant had broken the law by offering to sell the knife in his shop.The shopkeeper was acquitted on the basis that by displaying the knife it was an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. In regard to Stella we are once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically relating to an invitation to treat rather than an offer. When Stella was trying to purchase the CD for the advertised price of ? 1. 39 kinda of ? 13. 99 she in fact had no legal authority to do so as the price offered was an invitation to treat and not a contract but rather an invitation to enter into one.The contract is not created until a price is agreed and the item has been paid for. Stella is basically making Bruce and offer to pay ? 1. 39 for the CD as that is what it has been advertised as and by Bruce not accepting the offer due to a mislabeling issue a contract has not been formed. As in the case of Fisher v Bell (1961) just because there is a price tag next to an item or on an item the establishment is under no obligation to sell at said price.In conclusion in regard to the first legal question Bruce is legally bound to sell the Album at the price stated in the advert as it was a unilateral promise which is legally binding contract and not able to be revoked like a offer. In regards to Ken after he counter offered Bruces original offer to buy the rare vinyl Bruce was no longer under any legal ob ligation to sell the rare album to Ken as the offer had lapsed meaning no contract was in place.Finally Stella is unable to take legal action against Bruce and Bruce does not have to sell the CD to Stella at the advertised price and it was an invitation to treat and not an offer and although the two are similar when dealing with an invitation to treat rather than an offer there is no liability to accept. CITATIONS Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life presumption Corporation (1909) Fisher v Bell (1961) BIBLIOGRAPHY Black, G (Editor) Business Law in Scotland 2nd edition Crossan & Wylie Introductory Scots Law 2nd edition