Contract AO3

Question 1

4 strengths of the law around offers

Answer 1

1. Protects vulnerable claimants
2. Balances competing interests (adverts) supply and demand for D protection for C
3. considers reasonability when judging lapse of time
4. Anyone can make an offer (thornton)

Question 2

4 weaknesses to offer

Answer 2

1. lack of public awareness (goods on shelf) can cause issues in retail
2. can be hard distinguish between c-o and request for info
3. reasonable time is subjective
4. possibke imbalance of powers

Question 3

Acceptance general rule eval

Answer 3

Good-fair needs to be communicated

Bad-ignores aim of contrat law LF as in felthouse v bindley they ignore the parties wishes

Question 4

Postal rule eval

Answer 4

Bad-unfair on offeror as cant know until it arrives may enter multiple contracts
Good-limitations make it harder to rely on

Question 5

Electronic communication eval

Answer 5

Good-respects individuals working hours (the brimmes)

Bad-doesnt work with instant messages

Question 6

Acceptance by conduct eval

Answer 6

Bad-unclear whether accepted or not

Good-makes contracts effective for business affairs

Question 7

Business intention eval

Answer 7

Good-businesses held to a higher standard
Bad-could create imbalance of powers with small businesses

Rebuttal

Good-less revuttals means more certain
Bad-subjective LOC’s must be explicit

Question 8

Social intention eval

Answer 8

Presumption

Good-prevents floodgates as people make promises everyday
Bad-less certain less public awareness

Rebuttal

Good-justice served as peoppe rely on promises
Bad-against freedom of contract as outside circumstances effect enforceability

Question 9

Sufficiency eval

Answer 9

Bad-bad faith does not interefere with bad bargaining
Good-freedom to decide what is sufficient

Good-LF
Bad-imbalance of powers (leaves claimants open to manipulation or scam)

Good-talks literal meaning for sufficient, distinguished from gifts (white v bluett)
Bad-subjective and minor distinguising facts
Bad-

Question 10

Past consideration eval

Answer 10

Good-fair as parties cannot be forced to pay for something they dudnt agree to
Bad-immoral as left without payments

Good-implied promise for trades
Bad-subjective (people may not know when they can enforce rights)

Question 11

Pre exsisting duty eval

Answer 11

Good-protection for people who go above and beyond

Bad-open to manipulation by employers

Question 12

Part payment eval

Answer 12

Good-considers reliance and good faith under promissory estoppel
Bad-illogical as they can go against agreement and thos without legal knowledge will feel hardship (e.g. foakes v beer)

Question 13

Privity eval

Answer 13

Good-logical
Bad-unfair (beswick v beswick)

Good-FoC (dunlop v selfridge)
Bad-devalues product

Good-solution to increase damages means indirect parties can recieve damages
Bad-cant ensure where it goes

Good-runs with land benefit of protection of landmarks
Bad-people could enter into a contract without knowing of the RC

Good-new zealand shipping parties may still rely on exclusion clauses
Bad-CRTP seen as restrictive must be EXPRESS terms Nishin Shipping