Applicable Law Valid Contract-Elements

Question: Describe about the Valid Contract Elements". Answer: The offer is the first step of formation of a contract this expression defines a persons willingness for contracting in line with the specified terms. These terms further are made with the intention of making the terms of the offer binding as soon as the parties accept the same. There are two parties to an offer, (i) offeree to whom the offer is being made and (ii) offeror who makes the offer. An offer has three requirements (a) it needs to have exchange terms; (b) a willingness must exist for offeror to have the terms of the contract to be binding on him and (c) once the offeror has accepted the offer the offerree has the power to bind the offeror and the offeror cannot retract the offer once the same has been accepted by the offerree. The case of Pharmaceuticals Society of Great Britain opined that the goods which are displayed in a shop have been put there for allowing the customer to choose from them only. An offer however would be made only when an offer is made by the customer for purchasing. Thus Alan went to the store of Ben to look at the liquor on display since he wanted to purchase the same. This was only an invitation to treat since he was only looking. There was a counter offer that was made by Ben with respect to Alans request of buying Russian distilled vodka thus nullifying the initial treat to offer. Later upon insistence of Alan being the offeror that he wished to purchase only Russian distilled vodka Ben being the offeror assured him that the vodka provided by him would satisfy his requirement. It was opined in the Bannermans case that upon communication of a specific term by the offeror to the offerree the same shall be binding on the offeror. In the case of Ben and Alan there are specific terms which Alan communicate to Ben and it was in furtherance of these specific terms that the transaction was commenced. This was on the basis of this assurance that there was an acceptance of the offer and consequently the consideration was paid and the same acknowledged by way of receipt. The final element of a valid contract is that of legal capacity which broadly means that people who are either minors (in Singapore the age of majority is 18 years with effect from March 2009) or mentally incapacity do not have the capacity of forming a contract. Further it can be observed the Alan is an avid drinker hence a presumption can be made that he is not a minor further he also very clearly indicates his preferences and describes it correctly to Ben hence it is further presumed that he is not mentally incapacitated. In the case of Ben he is salesman for alcohol who is dealing deftly with the client hence presumption can be made that is not a minor nor mentally incapacitated. There has to exist the legal intention for creating a relationship that is legally recognized. There exists an intention to create a relationship that is legal because this is a contract of sale which is commercial in nature. Further based on the fact that there has been completion of the transaction and receipt provided for the same it can stated that there was an intention for creating a legal relationship. Thus, there has been a valid offer and acceptance, upon being assured that the alcohol is Russian Vodka he accepts the offer thus and paid to Ben the consideration for the same and a general rule exists that a promise will be enforceable only if there is a consideration attached to it. There is also a clear intention of forming a legal relationship and both the parties have the legal capacity to form a valid contract. There was quality of product however which Ben assured at the time when the purchase was being made however the alcohol that was purchased by Alan proved to be dangerous. Thus there has been a misrepresentation of the part of Ben and any contract which is formed on the basis of misrepresentation maybe set aside. Applicable Law Where there is a specific description of products that are being sold then it an implied condition under Section 13 that the goods should match the description of the properties that has been sold. It is with the products description and not the quality that this section is concerned with (Arcos v Ranaason [1933] AC 470). Therefore since Alan had specified that Russian distilled vodka was required by him and it was assured by Ben that the liquor was what had been requested by Alan hence the Sale of Goods Act section 13(1) would be attracted however the description of the product does not correspond with the product that had been specified by Alan. Though it can be assumed that Ben being only a salesman who was selling liquor may have unintentionally sold the liquor to Alan. It is not possible to take out the fault that was there in the alcohol without using any scientific method and even Alan and his friends realized that the liquor was not good when they had consumed it. However, it must be noted that this section 13 cannot be relied upon in those cases where the buyer has actually viewed the products (Harlington Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564). Standard placed under section 14(3) wherein the buyer has informed the seller certain qualities that are required by the goods then there are higher standards. Under this the seller would be liable even if there is satisfaction of the safety aspect however the product is not the specific to that which the buyer had required(National Foods Ltd v Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd, 2007). It must also be noted further that the alcohol which was sold by Ben was not legal and as held in the case of Rowland vs. Divall when a product has been obtained by illicit or illegal method then the same shall not be justifiable. A receipt is when a party acknowledges in writing that they have from the person whose name has been mentioned on the receipt received a consideration as has been specified in the receipt. In the receipt sometimes apart from acknowledgment of receiving of particular this there is also an acceptance of doing from the agreement between the parties another thing. The receipt is however only a prima facie evidence of the contract which exists between the parties which is considered. For incorporating a written term in the contract and the same to be considered by the court one of the main requirements is that the terms incorporation notice has to be given either before the agreement to the contract or during the agreement to the contract. Thus in the given situation between Alan and Ben the receipt only an evidence of the contract between Alan and Ben acknowledging the consideration received and paid by the respective parties. It was established in the case of Olley vs. Marlborough Court Hotel case that for considering the terms to be incorporated into the contract it is necessary that there should be a notice of the same either at the time when the contract is being made or before the contract has been made(Olley v. Marlborough Court Hotel, 1949). In light of the aforementioned discussion and case law, it is clear in the situation of Ben and Allan the exclusion clause which was added to the receipt being that the products sold are not refundable nor the seller responsible for the safety of the products it was necessary for Ben to inform Alan of the same at the time of formation of contract or before the contract was to be considered to be a part of the contract since it was made known to him after the contract had been formed and consideration made it would not be an exclusion clause in the contract and Alan can claim damages from Ben as in the case of Olley vs. Marlborough Court Hotel. Further it is also essentialto notethat the it is in the document of contract that the exclusion clause should be incorporated. This document of contract is the one which any reasonable person should assume to contain the contracts terms and should not be just the mere acknowledgment of consideration being received like a receipt (Parker v. SE Railway Co., 1877). Application of Law For claiming damages for negligence it is first essential establish that a duty of care existed. A duty of care is said to exist if there is proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is a test of reasonable foreseeability for establishing duty of care: There will be a duty of care that the defendant will owe towards the plaintiff where it can be foreseen reasonably that harm might be caused to the plaintiff due to omission or act of the plaintiff. There has been a breach of duty on the part of Ben when he sold the bootleg alcohol to Alan since it could have been reasonably foreseen by him that any person who would be drinking the alcohol could be harmed(Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson the product liability principle was established in which it was stated that there existed a duty of care even when there was no contract or no proximity of parties(Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). It also further stated that reasonable care should be taken for avoiding omissions or acts which can be foreseen reasonably that it is likely to injure neighbor. Neighbors under law are those who are directly and closely affected by the act (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). When it comes of sale of goods the duty of care is owed to the ultimate consumer even if there was no chance on inspection of the product. Thus keep in purview the product liability principles established it can be stated that a duty of care is owed towards the ultimate consumers and the neighbors to ensure that there has been no act or omission that would likely cause harm. Causation requires it to be necessary that negligence should be harms necessary condition, and that harm is falling within the defendants scope of liability. Issue of remoteness and causation are separately tended to, the but for test is the key tens when it comes to causation which basically question whether there could have been sustaining of the loss but for the negligence of the defendant. The case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1969) is a leading case in this regard(Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington, 1969). Thus, since there has been a breach of duty on the part of Alan by selling harmful bootleg alcohol he would be held liable for it even by Alans friends and there is no remoteness of relationship since it was by drinking this alcohol that Alans friends had fallen sick. Also the product liability principle would be applicable in this situation and since Alans friends are the ultimate consumers there lies an action against Ben from them. Further in case of Alans friends and the alcohol supplied by Ben if we apply the but for principle it can clearly be stated that had it not been for the harmful alcohol they would not have fallen sick hence the harm falls within the scope of liability of Ben. Also in case of Alans friends and the alcohol supplied by Ben if we apply the but for principle it can clearly be stated that had it not been for the harmful alcohol they would not have fallen sick hence the harm falls within the scope of liability of Ben. Action can also be brought by Alans friends under the Chapter 53B "Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act" where the enforcement of contract terms can be done by third party. Under the neighborhood principle the friends shall qualify. References Articles and conditions of building contract.(2011). Singapore. Bannerman vs. White, 10 CBNS 844 (1861). Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington, HMC (1969). Ch.09 Domestic Sale of Goods. (2016).Singaporelaw.sg. Retrieved 4 July 2016, Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd, SGHC 242 (2006). Donoghue v Stevenson, AC 562, 580. (1932). Frost v. Aylsbury Dairy Co. Ltd., 1 KB 608 (1905). George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds, 2 AC 803 (1983). National Foods Ltd v Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd, 2 SLR(R) 1048 (2007). Neyers, J., Bronaugh, R., Pitel, S. (2009).Exploring contract law. Oxford: Hart Pub. Olley v. Marlborough Court Hotel, 1 KB 532 (1949). Parker v. SE Railway Co., 2 CPD 416 (1877). Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd., 1 Q.B. 401 (1953).