Ash V Callum and Two Others, Essay Example

In Ash’s case, it is essential to single out the different issues at law that can arise if there is a legal proceeding by either of the involved parties. As for the Pokemon cards transaction, the contractual relationship could be deemed well performed to the legally expected standard if the seller and buyer completed their interparty obligations. Ash made an offer by completing a poster with an item. With due consideration, potential customers could avail themselves in the shop or through other legal sales of acceptable methods. In consideration of Ash’s offer, any customer who pays consideration is deemed to have intent in having a legally binding transaction with the seller. We Ash makes an acceptance of the consideration, the deal is then sealed. The contract becomes valid because, for a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, the two parties must agree to exchange something of value.

In the transaction between Ash and Bill, the lapse of the offer that Bill made to Ash can only be based on a reasonable lapse. In Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire (1866) LR 1 Ex 109, it was held that the subject matter, which was company shares, had influenced the lapse of the offer. Due to the subject matter, the offer had lapsed based on a reasonable time. Ash did not communicate an acceptance. The act of a seller remaining silent cannot amount to an acceptance. Bill can only try to prove that they were an intention from Ash if he can prove that the letter trying to waiver the precondition was received by Ash. The mere fact that Bill sends the consideration as per the advertisement is not enough to warrant acceptance from the seller. The acceptance must be accepted both ways before a contract can commence. It is also essential that the acceptance be made with a  procedure, at the place, and within the time as strictly designated in the offer. The proposer has the right to dictate terms concerning the time, place, and manner of acceptance, and when he does so, like other terms, they must be complied with.” Kendell v. Pontius, 261 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1972). In this case, the proposer was Ash, and he had the right to dictate the time and manner of acceptance.

Ash could also cite the need for him no to accept the offer to sell to Bill because he needed to sell at a higher price to somebody else. In  Errington v Errington Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 Court of Appeal, The learned judge held that the contract had commenced once the parties started performing.  In Ash’s case, the performance had no started because he had communicated acceptance communication of acceptance to Bill is legally supposed to commence performance. Bill had paid the consideration, but it was not sufficient to bind Bill and Ash into a legally binding agreement. Ash had to communicate the intention to exchange the cards to his offer and specifically sell them to Bill. Given the nature of contracts, an intention to create legal is viewed as the starting point of intention to be legally bound. Bill may have a legitimate claim against Ash. Still, he will face the difficulty of proving that he sends a letter. His intentions of sending the consideration to Ash will not fully amount to Ash’s acceptance.

Callum made a counteroffer to Ash, but after he failed to get a reply. Ash has a justification to presume that Callum had a duty to communicate if he had withdrawn the offer to buy the cards. The intention to buy the card s is the only fundamental base that made Ash keep the cards. As long as Ash communicated acceptance to sell the cards to Callum, it amounted to an intention to enter into a legal relationship. In Hyde v Wrench [1840] 49 ER 13, the rules of how the court treats a counteroffer are evident that a counteroffer changes the whole transaction in a contract. A counteroffer terminates the original offer. Hence, it is also sufficient to say that if a seller intends to accept the counteroffer, it affects the ability to make a decision. In the same light, Callum making a counteroffer to buy the cards at a higher price then the offer terminated the previous offer with the consequence of Ash making a decision not to sell based on the availability of a higher price. In the case of Dorton v. Collins & Aikman Corporation, 453 F.2d 1161 (6th Cir. 1972, it was also held that when a counteroffer is made, it nullifies the original offer. In the case of “Ash v Callum” The initial offer was terminated, and Ash sent a seasonable and definite expression of acceptance in a written expression. In this case, it stated the willingness of the seller to enter into a binding legal agreement. In this situation, I would advise Ash to sue for breach of contract against Callum because his actions of not paying the consideration proposed by him in the counteroffer amount to a breach of a binding agreement.

The practice of contract law allows an offer to be withdrawn for the offeror to enter into another contract in Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] 2 All ER 557. It was held that an offeror of a contract could withdraw any offer at any time. In this case, the offer was withdrawn because of Ash’s reasonable time for a willing seller to approach him had lapsed. The offer had a precondition that a willing seller should show interest before a specific date. Under the precondition then Dev has no case against Ash. Precedence was set in Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 3 All ER 386 when the learned judge held that in contracts where the offer has a precondition, then the precondition’s lapse is sufficient to warrant the withdrawal of an offer. Bill came to collect the two days after the lapse of time in Ash’s precondition. He sent the letter to show his intention to collect the cards after the precondition’s lapse, but Ash never received the letter. Ash does not communicate acceptance. Bill’s case is that of an intended offer recipient who does not respond on time within the prescribed period. Dev, the late intending buyer in Ash’s case, came after the lapse of time and had not initiated any procedure that could connote the willingness to enter into a binding agreement; he, therefore, cannot have a legitimate claim. Dev could only prove a contractual relationship if they meet and agreed on specific terms before the lapse of the precondition that Ash had offered. The act of Dev and ash meeting could be sufficient to prove the two minds meeting and the parties agreeing on the terms.  Ash made his offer publicly. Everybody who saw the offer cannot claim that they have entered into a contract with Ash. the act of a willing seller seeing an offer and a willing buyer agreeing to the seller is the only proof of intention bound. Therefore, Dev has no case against Ash because Ash had no promise to sell the cards to Dev. If Dev had to meet Ash and Ash had promised to sell the cards to him on special or general conditions.