From the textbook:
The defendant offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff on 6 June for £1000. On 8 June, in reply, the plaintiff made a counter-proposal to purchase at £950. When the defendant refused to accept this offer on 27 June, the plaintiff wrote again that he was prepared to pay the original sum demanded.
The court held: No contract existed between them. The plaintiff had rejected the original proposal on 8 June so that he was no longer capable of accepting it later.
Reasoning:
On what basis does Hyde sued Wrench for?
Breach of contract.
The general principal here is that when counter-offer occurs, naturally the original offer will be destroyed.
So Hyde can't sue Wrench for breach of contract, as the original offer has been turned down by Hyde at the first place. Means there is no contract anymore between the both parties, or in other words, the contract has been invalidated. Thus, the court held that no contract existed between them.
===
Thanks for reading my explanation on Law of Contract, Counter Offer, Hyde V. Wrench!
Does this clear the air a little?!
Here's what I think is so so so freaking true =]
No comments:
Post a Comment