Issues of this case: Could the offer acceptence by e-mail be capable of creating contractual relationships? Was there a breach of cotract? The matter of the case is regulated by Contract Law.
A contract can be difened as “an agreement containing promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations and enfoufceable in a court of law”. (Andy & Douglas, 2013, p.307). Though every contract involves an agreement, not every agreement is legally forceable and will result in contract. It is necessary to find out weather the agreement between parties was inteded to be regarded by the law as valid and enfoceable ...view middle of the document...
David agreed on the price $ 20,000 for the car.
A contractual agreement could occur when Charlie offers to sell his car to David, if certain essential contitions were met and David accepted this proposal. However, David asked Charlie to give him time to make decicion in the nearest time. It would probably is a clarification of counter-offer. David tried to vary the terms and conditions set be Charlie, which is a rejection of the original offer. However, offeree who is simply clarifies the terms of the contract is not making a counter-offer (Vicker&Pendleton, 2006, p.279).
Intention to creat legal relations and OFFER
The issue of this case is simillar to the issue of Ford&Anor v LaForrest &Ors  QSC 261. Ms La Forrest was an appellant bringing an action against a number of parties for injuries she suffered at Jupiter’s Casino. The appelant sent an e-mail to soslicitors of two defendants notifying them that she was preapared to accept their offer of settlement. Later on the same day solicitors confirmed acceptance and said they would prepare discharge papers. Duly the defendants forwarded the discharged papers to the appellant, but she did not accept terms and refused to sign them. Court held that the acceptance by e-mail was capable of creating binding agreement and creating legal relations.
In terms of the task case, it can be an offer as it was specially made for David. It was hardly an expression of interest to sell a car available for everyone. After all, when David notified Charlie about her willingness to buy the car, he did not reply, thus, did no express his intention to start the process of creating legally enforceable oblifations. From this point of view, Charlie’s intention to sell the car is more likely to be viewed as an invitation to treat.
An invitation to treat is not an offer and can not be accepted. Therefore an invitation to treat never tends to be bound and itself cannot be an agreement. It only expresses the willingness to start an offer and further possible acceptance. The party who respods the invitation to treat will be the party making the offer (Andy & Douglas, 2013). A contract must form an “offer”-“acceptance” –“consideration and an intention to be bound” relationship, while an invitation to treat is merely an invitation for submitting an offer. While it represents a willingness to deal, it differs from an offer in that it lacks an intention to be immediately bound. The situation in the task case is not a kind of pre-contractual negotiations with a mere request for further information, which may or may not lead to a contractual agreement and binding relationships. It was just a promise to give answer as soon as possible that was not a promise to buy the car.
When parties negotiate by instantaneous communication – usually be telephone, SMS or fax – agreement occurs when and where the offeror received notice their offer has been accepted. If problems such as static or “line dropout” prevent clear...