Offer and Acceptance Essay

For this good example the major issue is whether a valid contract is made between Tina and Yatie, and whether the the cranny by Yatie was revoked or not. According to (Miller & Jentz, 2010) every contract depart involve atleast two parties. That is the offeror and the offeree. The offerer is the party who makes the offer, and the offeree is the person to whom the offer is made to.OFFERAs per (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2009) an offer is a promise or lading to do or not to do a certain thing. And there are 3 elements for an effective offer to be legally bounding from the common law. They are the end must be serious, its monetary value should be definite, and must be communicated to the oferee. In this sideslip Yatie sends the offer letter proposing to supply hancrafts to Tina. The offer clearly satisfies these elements. first of all it is unambiguous that Yaties serious intention as she requested a written betrothal from Tina, as an objective aproach. If we look in t o the causal agency of Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493 84 S.E.2d 516 1954, the parties signed a document which was for the sale of land and it was binding.alike in this case the intention to create legal relations is evident from the Yaties request to Tina to send a written betrothal. Secondly it has clear terms (to supply handcrafts) of what they are going to do. The offer from Yatie was clear in this case, and unlike in the case of Ahmad Meah & Anor v. Nacodah Merican 1890 4 Ky 583 where offer was too vague. And for the last element, the parley of the offer was nail down when it was received by Tina (the intended party) on quaternary family 2011 and when it becomed knowledge to Tina, in line with the piece 4(1) of the Contracts toy 1950 Act 136 (CA) So the offer by Yatie was complete.ACCEPTANCELooking into the borrowing, Tinas acceptance was communicated by her staff Anis. Acceptance is the voluntary agreement to the terms of the offer by the offeree (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2009). As Tina requested her staff Anis (an factor for Tina while Tina is the principal) to noitify her acceptance of the offer to Yatie. According to (Schneeman, 2010) because of the fiduciary relationship between the agent and the principal, the agent can act on behalf of the principal. If Anis accepted the offer as in the case of Powell v Lee 1908 99 LT 284, then the acceptance go forth be held as not communicated. and in this case Anis was given actual authority from Tina by granting expressly verbally to accept the aim of Yatie by asking to fax the acceptance. When Anis telephoned on 7th September 2011 to Yaties office to confirm the acceptance, that is in like manner acceptance copious, as in the case of Tinn v Hoffman 1873 29 LT 271 the ruling was although a writen acceptance is requested, other methods such as telegram and verbal messeges can be used as means of acceptance.Even in the case of Adams v Lindsell 1818 EWHC KB J59 it was held that that the accept ance was communicated although the acceptance letter got misdirected and delayed. Therefore Tinas acceptance depart be effective on 6th September 2011. When Anis posted the letter on 6th September 2011, the acceptance was completed as from that moment forrard the control of delivering the message is out of control by Anis on behalf of Tina. theatrical role 4(2)(a) of CA affirms so for the acceptor. And according to (Miller & Jentz, 2010) for such situations the mail box obtain, which is also reffered to as the postal district or the deposited acceptance rule will apply. And this rule was formed to avoid the confusion of situations similar to this case of Tina and Yatie.CONSIDERATIONConsideration is the reason for the promise. And if there is no consideration in an agreement, the contract would be void as per Section 26 of CA. In this case Tina commited to receive Yaties offer of handicrafts supply, and the committedness is consideration enough as per Section 2(d) of CA. Yatie will expect Tina to complete her transaction. And with Tinas acceptance, her commitment will probably have affected her other business activities, and she also probably have rejected other business opportunities and offers due to her commitment to Yatie. So the consideration has passed between Yatie and Tina.REVOCATIONWhen the repeal of the offer is direct the acceptance is already posted. And the outcome is that the revocation by the offoror will altogether be effective when the revocation becomes knowledge to the offeree. But when the oferee dispatches the acceptance, it will straight off be effective. The case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880 5 CPD 344 illustrates the acceptance & revocation of the offer by postal rule. In that case the facts are that the revocation of the offer will only be communicated when the offeree receive it. And not on the date the offeror posts the revocation. Section 4(2)(b) of CA gives the condition that the offerors revocation will only be completed when the intended party is aware almost it.And for the revocation SMS on 8th September 2011 by Yatie would not apply, as it was sent after the acceptance by Tina which was on the 6th September 2011. For example even if the Yaties SMS was sent to begin with the acceptance, the revocation will still not be effective because as per the section 4(2)(b) of CA. But if we look into the case of Holwell Securities v Hughes 1974 1 WLR 155, the postal rule was overruled, since the suspect had specified to give the acceptance notice in writing before a certain deadline and was held that the offeror should actually receive it. Based on this ground, Yatie can claim that she had specified the acceptance to be given in writing and she did not actually receive the acceptance.But if we look into the section 5 (3) of the CA, a proposal may be revoked at whatsoever time before the communication of its acceptance, and is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. And thus the above said c ase (Holwell v Hughes) is overruled by the contracts Act. And in this case offer, acceptance and consideration were complete. And revocation by Yatie was not complete since Tina did not receive it before her acceptance. So, looking in to the facts, its highly equiprobable for a valid promise to exist between Yatie and Tina.