Various aspects of the contract that have occurred
Under contract law, there is a difference that has been made in relation to ‘offer and acceptance’. There are various stages that a contract will go through before they are validated and signed. The case of James and the pet toys shows an incidence in which he was given the offer and responded to it. There was first an offer by the company when they advertised the toys in the magazine. It should be noted that as they advertised for the offer, they clearly stated that they were ranging from five dollars per toy. This means that the toys were of different prices but the cheapest was going at five dollars. The company made the advertisement based on the current rates at which the toys were going for which meant that they were subject to change. James reacted to the advertisement immediately by writing a mail requesting for ten such toys to be set aside. As per the details of the letter, it implied that he was in need of the ten toys that were going for five dollars each.
There is a distinction between the day and moment that the advertisement was posted in the newspaper and the time that was taken for the letter to get to the manager (Burton, 2008). Time factor may have had a considerable effect on the changes that were made to the prices of the toys. James seemed to accept this fact and was hence willing to part with two extra dollars to obtain the toys. It was however contrary to what he had been told by Mary about the prices of the toys. Mary acted by responding that instead of having to obtain them at nine dollars each, he would be given the offer at eight dollars each. There are various rules concerning the offer and acceptance of contracts by means of post. One of these rules is that the offer comes valid the moment it is posted. In looking at the legal implication of the offer that James was given and the amount that he had to pay on the counter, we find that Mary breached the agreement. She had written to James informing him that he would be given the toys for eight dollars each but was instead given for nine dollars each.
There is however another rule that governs acceptance which requires the person on the receiving end to accept the offer after receiving the mail. Mary may hence be justified under the contract law to give James the toys at nine dollars since he had not received the letter. The offer that was given to James was still pending based on the acceptance rule considering the fact that the letter had not reached him. Mary may be justified to think that the offer had not been accepted by James and hence stating a different price for the same. The action that was taken by James of refusing to pay for the additional funds that he had been charged shows an assumption that he had made. He may have probably thought that by making the request in advance and sending the payments, the contract had been finalized and he was only to collect the items. His refusal action was not legally binding to the company because they had sent him a letter with the details of the new agreement. However had the letter not been sent to him, at the time he was coming to collect the toys, then it would have been assumed that his offer of seven dollars per toy had been accepted.
Contractual aspects of this arrangement
The case would be treated differently if Mary and James were siblings and the contract would have been considered void by Petz R Us. This is because James used a legally unaccepted means to send the money. Mary would have been considered to act in favoritism to her brother by receiving the money via post and also responding to his request. If the case was to be taken to court and analyzed critically, Mary would have had a lot of questions to answer and be declared guilty in the matter. As the manager of the company was not supposed to accept money through illegal means just because she was dealing with her brother. When it comes to business contracts, contracting individuals are to leave family ties behind and act according to how the law requires. It would have been assumed that in the process of the two contacting each other concerning the toys, Mary may have agreed to reduce the price simply because she was dealing with the brother.
James on the other hand may have told the court that he refused to accept the final offer because Mary acted in a way that convinced him that he was able to get the toys at seven dollars per toy which prompted his action to visit the stores immediately. In defense, he would also have said that he did not take the response based on Mary being his sister but the manager of the company (Busch, 2002). By receiving the money and responding to the letter that was basically directed to the company, the contract will be binding to the company. The action of the court will basically depend on the reasons that will be given by James to refuse the offer. It may also be suggested that there were actually no changes that were made to the prices of the toys as stipulated earlier. The five-dollar offer may have expired in the process when the letter was yet to be received by the company. By the time the letter had been received, the prices may have shot up to nine dollars per toy and hence the previous offer being declared void. Mary being the brother of James may have felt for the inconveniences that may have been caused to him with the increased prices and settled for a bargain. The bargains that Mary and James were involved in may not have been approved by the company based on their relationship.
The nature of the contract, in this case, would have been considered biased towards James who would in turn buy the products at a lesser price than the company was offering them for (Anson, 2009). James may have also reacted faster than Mary had thought. She probably wanted to dispatch the toys secretly to him with a lesser price and hence sealing the deal successfully. However considering the fact that he could not be given the toys at a lesser price, it implies that the deals were not according to the plans of the company. The personal plans that Mary had to forward the toys at a cheaper rate may have been jeopardized when James came in-person to collect them. Mary was helpless in this and therefore had to distance herself from the deals. Apart from the agreements being declared void by the court of law, Mary will have to compensate his brother for the damages caused to him by implying that the prices were negotiable.
Legal rights that James has against Mary or Petz R Us
In case James goes to the shop and discovers that there were no toys, he will have a right to sue Mary for breach of contract. It was expected that by reacting to his mails and also receiving payments for the toys, she was ready to set aside the toys just in case they run out of stock. In his letter to the company which was received by Mary, he had requested that ten toys be set aside for him (Kelly, 2002). This he did by sending a consideration for the same which he believed was a total of ten dollars. The subsequent reactions also implied how much James was in need of the toys and dint mind paying more for them. When Mary wrote back and said that the toys were going for nine dollars, he did not enter into bargains by demanding to know why they had shot up from five to nine dollars. He simply added two dollars and requested the company to give him a discount for purchasing in bulk. Even if his quotation was not acceptable, Mary should have kept for him the toys until when a conclusion was made on the price of the toys.
Breach of contract usually occurs when one party acts in a way that will suggest that the contract will not be completed even after they had implied the same. A sales contract will only be complete if the goods have moved from the hands of the seller to the hands of a buyer in receipt of consideration. In this case, the contract was half way complete because Mary had received a certain consideration for the goods (Surhone, et al, 2010). Accordingly, apart from the changes that were made at the last moment, James knew that the contract will be completed as soon as he gets to the stores and was given his products. The first charge that she was to be charged for was an action implying to James that the toys were still available for him by accepting payment prior to being given the toys. She will also be required to compensate James for the damages and inconveniences caused by making him travel all the way only to find the products missing. According to the rules of contract law, parties to the contract have a right to be informed of any changes that may be made to imply that the contract will not be completed according to the earlier terms. The party that does not give such information on time will be liable to fines and compensation to the aggrieved party.
James will also charge Mary for allowing him to use legally unaccepted means of paying for the offer. It may be realized that the goods were sold because James had not given the required consideration to Mary for the agreement to be complete. Mary has hence clearly known that the method that he used to receiver the consideration was not legally binding and hence not kept for him the toys. For this reason, she wouldn’t have accepted the consideration and asked James to use the correct procedure. There was hence misinformation concerning the method of receiving a consideration for the products on offer. Such misinformation was to be blamed on Mary who is the manager of the company and at the same time encouraged James to purchase the goods using the wrong procedure.
Reference list
Anson, W., (2009). Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in Its Relation to Contract. London: General Books LLC,
Burton, K., (2008). BUSINESS OFFER and ACCEPTANCE CONTRACT. New York: Alpha Publications of America, Incorporated,
Busch, D., (2002). The principles of European contract law and Dutch law: a commentary. London: Kluwer Law International.
Kelly, D., (2002). Business law. New York: Routledge.
Surhone, L., et al, (2010). Offer and Acceptance: Contract, Estoppel, Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment, Smith V Hughes, Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Invitation to Treat, Option Contract, Implied-in-Fact. London: Betascript Publishers.