Is anyone good at law?

[Rossi]

I've got a piece of coursework in for Friday and I really don't know where to start. We've been given a piece of text and have to pick out the issues from it then find cases to refer it to then say who would be most likely to win the case. e.g

Ronnie owns a shop called Purple Daze that only sells items coloured purple. One day Tom enters the store after seeing a purple lamp and lampshade in the shop window. He wishes to purchase the items, but Ronnie refuses as it is the last one in the shop and has been reserved by Dick.

I've had a look around on the internet for similar cases but I'm not really too sure what search terms I should be using. Any tips?

[flammableBen]

One of my ex-housemates has a law degree. She's normally on msn at some point quite late, I'll ask her if she does turn up.

[Rossi]

cheers mate!

[Simon Pieman]

Sounds familiar from what I did in law. Give me a tick and I will find the case....it's to do with offers and acceptance.

[Simon Pieman]

OK here goes....

A very clear issue is that Ronnie has refused to sell the goods to Tom. He is perfectly entitled to do so because the display of goods in a shop window is an 'invitation to treat' and not a contractual offer. This is very well highlighted by the case of Fisher v Bell [1961] where Lord Parker stated:

"it is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merley an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for the sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract".

Note - the law is the same if the article has no price on it.

Also take note of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953, CA) where display of articles on shelf was an invitation to treat - not an offer. The offer is made by the customer taking the goods to the till.

Hope that gives you a good start and if I think of some other stuff will let you know.

[Rossi]

Thats brilliant Si, cheers.

[Simon Pieman]

You may want to look at the issue of contractual agreements as well. Ronnie probably has a contractual agreement to keep the item reserved for a period of time for Dick. This also links to the issue of revocation of contract.

[Simon Pieman]

Ok just refreshing my memory a bit. The whole reservation thing:


Ronnie may revoke the contract (if there is one) to reserve the items for Dick at any time he likes, as long as it is before acceptance. However if there is consideration (which means the exchange of a promise for another i.e. money for the items) the revocation must be communicated by Ronnie to Dick. There is no way of knowing whether the agreement to keep the items reserved involves any consideration so you need to attack from both angles i.e. make an argument for if there is consideration and if there isn't.
Use the case of Dickinson v Dodds (1876) for guidance and also Stevenson v McLean (1880)

Then there is the method of acceptance. If Dick decides he wants the items there are many methods to do so. I will have a gander now to dig up relevant points with regards to this and post in a bit.

[yeo]

No thats wrong.

[Simon Pieman]

Yeovil may revoke his dick (if there is one) from his arse any time he likes, as long as it is before midnight. However if there is constipation (which means he can't shit because his cock is too far up himself) the revocation must be forced by Ronnie to remove the Dick. There is no way of knowing whether Yeovil Red will have time to remove his penis from his arse so he may need to attack from both angles i.e. eat lots of beans and fart it out or pull it out using a pair of tongs.
Use the case of Yeovil Red v His Bum Hole (2005) for guidance and maybe a surgeon's knife.

 

[Rossi]

[yeo]

you cant talk to me like that i have 6000 odd posts :x

[Simon Pieman]

That was my 6666th post though  :twisted:

[Simon Pieman]

Acceptance of a contract:

Silence does not amount to acceptance. Therefore if Dick does not communicate his acceptance by speech or by written etc. then he cannot say later (when the offer has expired) that he had in fact accepted the offer before.
This is shown in the case of Felthouse v Bindley (1862).

If acceptance is given by word of mouth then that alone is not enough to amount to acceptance. The acceptance must be heard by the offeror. The reason for this is that the parties cannot be regarded as having made an agreement unless they are aware of it.
Lord Denning gave examples in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955, CA). For instance a loud noise means an offer or acceptance cannot be heard. Or if a telephone line is bad and the other person can't hear.

[Simon Pieman]

Acceptance by post:

Acceptance takes place when it is posted and not when it is received (known as the postal rule)

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

even when delayed in post or lost
Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879, CA)

there's a ton of other stuff but I can't be arsed any more