John is an offerer as he is seting his belongings out at 2 million and this offer may besides be made to the universe at big non merely persons or specific groups of people ( Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 ) . After holding measuring through the state of affairs of Adam and Bill. I would wish to touch on measuring Adam’s state of affairs foremost. In this scenario. John was the offerer as he offered 2 million for the house and Adam is the offeree but as Adam was the first spectator of the house and he offered to pay 1.
8 million. Adam so became the offerer and John became the offeree. Reason being there was a counteroffer of 1. 8 million alternatively of the original 2 million done by Adam which made him the offerer. Following. John whom is the offeree did non response either positively or negatively towards Adam’s offer but merely kept quiet. so one would hold that there was no communicating between them which besides means there was no credence for this sale of belongings.Additionally.
between these two parties the offerer and offeree. they had non applied the theory of silence to be constructed as credence for the dealing of the house. In this instance John did non reciprocate towards Adam when he offered the monetary value of 1. 8 million. credence must be communicated ( Entores Ltd V Miles Far East Corp ) . Since there was no communicating between offerer Adam and offeree John to hold that offeree’s silence would be formulated as credence.
this so would foreground that silence does non represent as credence harmonizing to the instance ( Felthouse v Bindly 1862 ) . Unless. there was communicating done between Adam and John that silence would represent as credence. following with both parties holding verbally or in written signifier on the monetary value of the belongings. Adam has no factual grounds to take legal actions against John.Traveling on to measuring Bill’s state of affairs.
on the same twenty-four hours after Adam left. Bill came over to see John’s belongings. Bill agreed to the 2 million offer that John had made. Therefore. John is the offerer and Bill is the offeree. In this instance. though Bill agreed on paying 2 million for the belongings.
he added on “subject to contract” . this phrase merely means that the offeree is agreeable to the footings of the offer but proposes that both parties negotiates a formal contact on the footing of the offer ( Yap Eng Thong V Faber Union ) . this scenario so made this trade between Bill and John non finalized at that minute. Indeed there was communicating made between the offerer and offeree. which subsequently offerer John verbally agreed with offeree Bill on this footings that the monetary value of the belongings 2 million would be “subject to contract” .
but harmonizing to the jurisprudence it does non represent to John the offerer holding to selling the belongings until there is a formal contract where both offerer and offeree are signed to it.There was credence for the monetary value of the belongings between the two parties. but there wasn’t an credence for John to sell the belongings. Bill did non bespeak clearly. if the contract was to be prepared by Himself or John. therefore it was a clear apprehension between the offerer and the offeree that the offerer has no duties nor must sell the belongings unless there is formal contract presented between the both parties. if non the offeror’s offer may still be made to the universe at big.
To reason Bill’s ideas of taking legal actions against John would non be recommended as there are no clear evidences for Bill to contend for.Finally. for Charles instance. John became the offeree and Charles became the offerer as Charles counter offered John with 2. 2 million alternatively of the initial 2 million.
The four elements offer. credence. consideration and purpose to make legal dealingss were all seen between Charles and John. Acceptance was being communicated between offerer and offeree. both parties verbally agreed on the counter offered monetary value 2.
2 million for the belongings. Additionally there was an executed consideration observed between them. there was an act done by one party in exchange for a promise. Immediately. the undermentioned twenty-four hours.
they went to finish a contract of sale for the belongings which chiefly means offerer and offeree created legal dealingss for the sale of belongings.
