Dissertation de droit en anglais: Double jeopardy

...

Let’s now consider the offer made by Vikash to Aliyah. Vikash respect the deadline, which is two weeks after the 12th of june, because he calls Aliyah the 15th of June. As Aliyah advertisement is an invitation to treat, he is making an offer to Aliyah, a bilateral offer. Indeed, she has to accept the offer of £900 but also to notify it to Vikash. The problem here is the way of acceptance offers by Vikash. He says that “if he doesn’t hear from her by the evening of the 18th June […], The car is his”. Then, Aliyah has two way of accepting the offer : The first one is by calling back Vikash and notify him that she is willing to sell the car, or, according to Him, not saying anything until his deadline, the 15th of June.

But is silence worth an acceptance. In Felthouse v Bindley, this rule of silence as an acceptance is at the heart of the case. A nephew wants to buy a horse from uncle, and say that if he doesn’t hear from him by the week-end he would consider it his. Unfortunately, the horse is sell in auction by mistake with the farm. The uncle decides to sue the auctioneer, but he his told that there was no contract and he lose. The silence cannot be considered as acceptance. That is the case here. Vikash cannot consider the silence of Aliyah as an acceptance. So vikash cannot consider the car as his.

Furthermore, in a contract, above and beyond offer and acceptance, there must be consideration. As to have consideration from Aliyah should have stop looking for buyers. In effect, consideration must result in an different acting of Aliyah.[3] It is not therefore not possible to consider that there is a contract between Vicash and Aliyah.

Finally, even If Vicash has asked before Donald (apparently), the offer cannot work because Aliyah hasn’t heard anything about Vicash offer. And this is sufficient, as soon as the silence rule doesn’t apply to Vicash case, as Aliyah didn’t listen to her mail it is not working.

However, how is it possible to considered that the contract between Aliyah and Donald is valid? Firstly, the offer is higher than vikash, and in that perspective, we can say that Aliyah would have preferred Donald’s offer, as the price is “£1000 or nearest”. This superlative means that she would accept the closest to £1000, which is Donald.

Secondly, Aliyah and Donald settled a contract, because Donald made an offer, a bilateral one, and Aliyah accepted it. Indeed, on one side, He proposed £950 for the Volvo, which is the nearest price of £1000, and therefore a convenient price for the car. On the other side, Aliyah accepted it, with consideration because she sold the car.

So now let’s ask ourselves if Vikash can still have the car if he gave a higher price. Indeed, we can ask ourselves if, for example, Vikash propose £1000 or even a higher price, he could still get the car. The definition of a contract is “A contract is an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law”. Following this definition, a contract, from the moment he is settled, “give rise to obligations” and those are for Donald pay the price of the car an for Aliyah give the car to Him.

To conclude with, Aliyah is within his right to sell the car to Donald. Firstly, Vikash as just made an offer to Aliyah, and even if she did not hear the message and that Vikash tried to apply a rule of silence, that is not Worthing an acceptance or consideration. Secondly, the contract settled between Donald and Aliyah is totally acceptable and Alyah as the right to sell the car to Donald. A last advice for Aliyah, before selling this car, she must check that Donald as his driving license in due form, because she would break the law if she sells this car to a person that does not have a driving licence.

Bibliography

- Treitel G.H. Treitel on the Law of Contract (eleventh edition, Thompson, 2003)

- Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421

- Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 2 WLR 1153

- WestLaw, www.westlaw.co.uk

- Lexis, https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/