Daulia ltd v four millbank nominees ltd

Contract Law

Module Title:

Principles of Law of Contract

Module No:

BNC1003

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

This coursework is designed to assess the following learning outcomes:

Demonstrate an understanding of the constituent parts of an agreement

Evaluate and apply the law relating to invitations to treat and offers

Analyse the law relating to acceptance

Apply relevant case law to the question and draw conclusions

COURSEWORK:

Paul is a keen tennis enthusiast and on 1st March, he joined his local tennis club. On 20th March, whilst visiting the club he lost his gold watch. He decided to put an advert on the noticeboard of the club which read:

“Help required:

Lost Rolex gold watch - £350 to anyone who can return the watch or has information relating to its safe return. Ring 01234 567890”

On 20th March Sean is walking down the street when he noticed the gold watch on the floor. He picked it up and took it to the local police station where he handed it in.

Sally is a member of the tennis club. She sees Paul’s advert and thinks nothing more about it until she is talking with her next-door neighbour Sean on 6th April. Sean informs her that he found a gold watch and that he handed it in to the police. After concluding their conversations Sally immediately rings Paul and informs him of the location of the watch. Sally asked for the money in the advert as she had completed what she thought she had to do. Paul thanked Sally for the information and informed her that he did not consider himself bound by the advert as his insurance had indemnified him for the lost watch and so he did not care any more about the location of the watch and so therefore there was no longer a reward.

Advise Paul as to his liability.

Answer

Explanation of a contract’s parts

Definition of offer (Carlill) and distinguishing from ITT (Partridge)

Explanation of reward contracts (Williams v Corwarding)

The offeror must have the offer in mind at the time of contracting (R v Clarke)

Acceptance definition

Acceptance of a unilateral contract can take place by fully performing the conditions set out in the offer; Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd

Routledge v Grant establishes that “a party … may retract [the offer] before it is accepted”.

It should be noted that insofar as unilateral contracts are concerned, there are exceptions to the requirement of communication Shuey v US, which that “it seems to be enough for [the offerer] to take reasonable steps to bring the withdrawal to the attention of such persons”.

Offers can be left open for a reasonable period of time Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore

An Implied term can be used to prevent the revocation if performance has begun Errington v Errington; Soulsbury v Soulsbury

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Your work will be graded accordingly to the following criteria, which are also set in the Assessment Guidelines set out in your Student Handbook.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA - UNDERGRADUATE

The criteria below are not intended to be either exhaustive or definitive and are to be taken as guidelines rather than imposing absolute standards. In instances where these guidelines are not applicable, for example in the case of presentations or group work, the particular assessment criteria to be used should be clearly specified.

Mark range 90 – 100%

A piece of work should fall within this class if it displays characteristics of:

Original, incisive and creative research, using relevant and contemporary literature

Outstanding comprehension displayed

Insightful, outstanding analysis

Compelling evidence, supporting analysis

Complete and authoritative piece of work

Mark range 80 – 89%

Work in this category will display characteristics of:

Original, incisive and creative research, using relevant and contemporary literature

Outstanding comprehension displayed, with some evidence of misconceptions/errors

Outstanding analysis, though lacking some relevant insights

Compelling evidence, supporting analysis

An authoritative piece of work, though may lack completeness

Mark range 70 – 79%

Work in this category should display an excellent understanding of the assessment area, with a clear demonstration of pertinent, critical analysis. Work presented will demonstrate an excellent understanding of appropriate concepts and contemporary, contextual appreciation of literature.

Mark range 60 – 69%

Work in this category should display a high level of competence, with clear demonstration of critical analysis relevant to assessment requirement and some contemporary, contextual appreciation of literature.

Mark range 50 - 59%

Work in this category should display overall competence, however it will be lacking in analytical depth and /or display a limited comprehension of the subject matter so that the work falls short of a B grade. A good deal of the relevant content may have been presented by the student but this will be less well articulated and developed than the grade B student. The more difficult concepts will be omitted or dealt with superficially. The application of the principles and theory to the problem/question will be more limited and perhaps dealt with in a more “re-gurgitative” manner. The work may contain minor errors; however there should be no major misunderstandings.

Mark range 40 – 49%

Work will fall into this category if it contains relevant material in relation to the issues raised by the problem/question, including the central issue. The answer will be presented in a coherent and largely correct manner, although the analytical aspects and comprehension will be of a limited nature. Use of principles, theory and evidence may be poor and the overall coverage of the subject matter will be of a limited nature.

Mark range 30 – 39%

Work in this category has elements that are correct: however the work displays a number of major misconceptions that call into question the student’s comprehension of the material. The analytical contents may be very weak or even non-existent. Application of principles, theory and evidence to the problem may be weak. Overall coverage may be poor. Reference to sources or authorities may be weak or inappropriate. Structure may be weak.

Mark range – below 30%

The work is limited and contains fundamental errors that indicate a substantial lack of comprehension by the student. There will be little or no analytical content and the references to authorities and sources will very limited or non-existent. The presentation and structure of the work may be poor. The work may also be characterized by falling far short of the overall word limit and possibly repetition of material or arguments. Conclusions may be non-existent or limited.