The first issue is whether Mat’s reply was a counteroffer or a request for further information on whether or not Michael would change the upholstery in the car before sale.
If it was a counteroffer, as was held in Hyde Vs. Wrench (1840) 3 BEA 3341, this would have amounted to a negation of the previous offer to the new offer of $20,500. Therefore there would not have been a contract between Michael and Matt. If it was a request for further information, as in Stevenson, Jacques & co v McLean (1880) 5 JOB 3462, the offer could have still been opened and accepted by Matt.
In my opinion, Matt asked Michael whether or not if he would be prepared to change the upholstery, and nowhere in the case study does it state that Matt made a counteroffer on the BMW by the language he used and in fact, Michael was the one who made the counteroffer and presumed that Matt would accept t. The next issue that comes up is whether or not Matt did accept the offer or if acceptance did not occur.
In the case study it is stated that after Michael revoked the original offer and provided a new offer of 20,500, matt said nothing. Silence is not a form of acceptance as was held in Flophouse Vs. Bindle (1862) 11 CUBS 8693. The case clearly indicates that a person who makes an offer, cannot impose a bargain on the other merely by stating that silence indicates consents. In conclusion, as Matt did not in any way, shape or form accept the offer and was lent when the offer was made the contract between Michael and Matt is invalid.
As between Michael and Matt, is promissory estoppels relevant? Give reasons. Is promissory Estoppels relevant between Michael and Matt? When Matt inspected the BMW and asked whether or not Michael was willing to change the upholstery in the car Promissory Estoppels became relevant as it operates to enforce certain promises that are not supported by any valuable considerations.
There are two elements of Promissory Estoppels that are evident in the case, in that the promise or representation encouraged a certain belief in the mind of the promise ND that the promise relied on the promise by undertaking an act or acts, or refraining from undertaking an act or acts, which there is clear evidence in the cases study that matt had asked Michael whether or not he would change the upholstery and therefore leading Michael to follow through with the act, as was held in Wallow’s stores Vs. Maier (1988)8, this would have amounted to the promissory Estoppels from denying the existence of its promise to Michael from Matt.
The next issue is consideration Vs. promissory estoppels and whether or not all elements of a contract existed and are present between Michael and Matt including consideration to gain promissory estoppels. The differences between promissory estoppels and consideration need to be looked at before deciding whether or not it is promissory estoppels. These differences are; Promissory estoppels is only relevant with voluntary promises that are not supported by consideration. 0 The plaintiff must prove all of the elements for promissory estoppels before the doctrine will be allowed to operate. 11 Breaches of contract remedies are broader and subject to fewer restrictions relative to the remedies available for promissory estoppels, because contract remedies, by their very tauter, are designed to compensate the plaintiff for their expected losses, including loss and profit. 2 The remedy that is available as of right for a successful action in promissory estoppels is the minimum remedy which is required to do justice between the parties. A court may award more than the minimum remedy and make the maximum available, as was the case in Walton stores v Maier. 13, In my opinion, Promissory Estoppels is relevant between Michael and Matt because of Mats intentions to buy the car if Michael had of changed the upholstery and in this case he did, this, therefore, lead to the loss of none and profit from Michael by changing these seats for Matt.
In relation to the dry-cleaning agreement between Keyring, Molly and Kelley, are the contract terms sufficiently certain? Give reasons. Are the contract terms adequately definite in relation to the dry-cleaning agreement between Keyring, Molly, and Kelley? Certainty is an important element of every contract because without certainty it is unclear what the precise terms are. At a more fundamental level, it may also be insufficiently clear that the parties have in fact reached an agreement and that a contract actually exists.
The main issue with certainty is that there needs to sufficient completeness and clarity before a contract can be enforced 15. The issue of the contract terms being sufficiently certain ultimately comes down to whether or not there were illusory terms communicated between Kelley to Molly and Keyring. Illusory terms run the risk that the contract will be unenforceable because the consideration may be illusory. The problem with illusory terms typically occurs when the parties have used imprecise terms or phrases.
Some examples of terms that may be considered illusory by the courts are ‘reasonable’ and ‘appropriate’1 7. Kelley stated in the Case that “due to increasing demand for dry-cleaning services, the shop would not be able to abide by the usual three-day return policy and that the clothes would be ready in a couple more days” Kelley communicated in clear language and did not use any vague terms to Molly and Keyring and informing them there dry cleaning will take longer than 3 days.
If this were an illusory term, as was held in Biotechnology Australia Pity Ltd V Pace this would have amounted to insufficient terms between Kelley, Molly, and Keyring as the terms were Illusory. But as Kelley did not state any vague and unclear terms in saying to Molly and Keyring that there Dry-cleaning would be more than three days, Kelley has in fact made the terms sufficiently clear and certain and is not held in breach of contract as a result of this.
