1) On Monday Big BusinessLid. (BB) offers to sell 300 wrist watchesto Going Places Ltd. (GP) at $50 per watch The offer to GP is sent by fax and includesthe following statement "Please send an acceptanceby 12pm today. Deliverywill occuron Wednesday. GP emailsan acceptanceat 10am The email is accidentallydeletedby an administrative assistantat BB before it is passed on to BB's management Meanwhile GP enters into a contractwith Next-in-Line Ltd to producenew wristbandsthat can be sold with the watches Advise GP whetherthere is a binding contractwith BB. Would your advice differ in the followingcircumstances and if so, why? (a) GP telephonedan acceptanceto BB on Mondayafternoon (b) GP faxed an acceptanceto BB before Monday 12pm but the fax machineat BB failed to print out the fax due to lack of a new printing cartridge (c) The offer from BB had stipulatedthe followingstatement "Please send your acceptanceby first class registeredpost sent before 12pm" GP sent a letter of acceptancebefore 12pm but by unregisteredpost which was never receivedby BB 2 . Peter (P) put the followingadvertisementin the local newspaperthat was distributed on Monday. "Motorcyclefor sale. Excellentcondition Price: $3000. Tel. 1902 655 655. Fax. 1902 652 652". On Tuesdaymorning Robert (R) telephonedthe numberprovidedin the advertisement P was away at the time and the call was answeredby P's girlfriend Jill (J), with whom P had just had an argument R explainedto J that he was calling in responseto the advertisementand added "I want to buy the motorcycle I'll send a fax to confirm'. J replied "Fine. I'll tell P when he comes back home". R sent immediatelythereaftera fax stating "I am interestedin buying your motorcycleat the advertisedprice. I assume it is registered'. P's fax machinewas not loaded with paper at the time, so R's messagewas not printed out. When P arrivedhome early Tuesdayevening J said to him: "Your stupidmotorbikeisn't particularlypopular Only one person has rung about buying it". P askedher if the personhad providedtheir contactdetails, and she replied"no". P, feeling irritated, then went upstairsto his study where he discoveredthat the fax machinewas out of paper He loaded it with paper, and receivedthe print-out of the fax from P. He noticed that there was an email address in the letterheadused by R, so he immediatelyemailedR stating "I agree to your offer to buy my motorcycle'. R receivedonly part of this messagedue to a defectin the modemin his computer The next day, R saw anothermotorcycleadvertisedfor sale which appearedto be a better buy. AdviseR whetherhe has already enteredinto a valid contractto buy P's motorcycle

Find the answer below

Step-by-step explanation

1) I am explaining to you that when communication is done. For example, A made an offer to B to sell a house at a certain price. Further explanation is given below. 

Explanation: 

I am explaining to you that when communication is done. For example, A made an offer to B to sell a house at a certain price. 

a. The communication of the proposal is done when B receives the letter. 

b. If B accepts the offer. The communication of acceptance is done; for A when the letter is posted by B; for B when the letter is received by A. 

Here, receiving a letter is necessary to complete the communication of acceptance. 

1.GP telephone an acceptance to BB on Monday afternoon, that's mean communication of acceptance is done over telephone simultaneously. Yes, the contract is binding to both parties. 

2. GP faxed an acceptance to BB before Monday 12 pm but the fax machine at BB failed to print out, here the communication of acceptance is done because GP sent an acceptance on a fax machine that means acceptance has received but not yet printed. Hence, the contract is binding. 

3. If GP sent a letter of acceptance before 12pm but by unregistered post which was never received by BB, that means a communication of acceptance is not done because the letter of acceptance did not receive by BB. Hence, the contract is not binding.

2)

Issue 1 status of newspaper advertisement. The ad. is an invitation to treat, not an offer see, e.g.. Partridge v. Crittenden. 

Issue 2 status of R's phone call. The call is unlikely to be treated as an offer as it is too vague-it apparently failed to identify the offeror or mention the price, and the statement about confirmation by fax suggests that the offer will come by fax. There is also an issue as to whether J has authority to receive an offer. If, in the unlikely event R's phone call is to be treated as an offer, J's reply is too vague to constitute acceptance. 

Issue 3 status of R's fax. The fax might be treated as an offer, but there are some factors that detract from such a view. First, the phrase "I am interested in...", which is somewhat Indefinite in terms of commitment to buy. Secondly, the assumption about registration could be argued to cast the entire fax as a request for information, rather than an offer-cf., e.g., Harvey v Facey. However, the latter argument is tenuous. The better view is that the fax constitutes an offer to contract on certain terms, one of these being that the motorbike is registered. 

Issue 4= whether R's offer (assuming the fax offer) has been communicated to P. Fax is to be treated as instantaneous communication: See J.S.C. Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalley Plant v. Ronly Holdings Ltd. Thus, the rule here is that the offer is communicated when it has been actually received by P-Entores v. Miles Far East Corp; Brinkibon Ltd. Stahag Steel. We can assume that the offer has been received by P: the precise time of reception is not material in this case, but it is, at the very latest, when the P received the printout from the fax. 

Issue 5= whether R's offer (again, assuming the fax-offer) has been accepted by P. P replies by email, and this email is most likely to be treated as an acceptance. A possible issue is whether email is a valid form of communicating acceptance. It might be argued that as offer was made by fax, acceptance should also be by fax. This line would build on old case of Quenerduaine v. Cole, which is authority for proposition that offer by telegram is evidence of desire by offeror for prompt/quick reply, so that sending acceptance by ordinary post may be treated as invalid. However, one should not apply this decision as necessarily meaning that if offer made by telegram (or, say, fax), then acceptance must also be by telegram (or, say, fax). The law is more flexible than that. General rule offeree must adhere to mode of acceptance stipulated by offeror: Ellason v. Henshaw. But if stipulation not precise, offeree may choose equally expeditious mode of communication: Tinn v. Hoffmann & Co. Here stipulation is not made, so considerable margin for manoeuvre here. Likely that speed is required, but email is usually as fast as fax. Thus, the better view is that email in this case valid form of communicating acceptance. Another question related to issue 5 is whether P has accepted R's (putative) condition that the

Issue 6 whether the (putative) acceptance has been effectively communicated to R. This is relatively difficult to resolve here. General rule acceptance must be "communicated to offeror (Entores): Le, actually received and comprehended by offeror. But rule can be departed from in some circumstances. Eg, if offeror is at fault b/c of defective communications equipment or b/c of careless employee, then acceptance deemed to occur when it would normally have been received (Brinkibon: The Brimnes). No case law dealing directly with e-mail communication in offer/acceptance context. So need to extrapolate from existing case law dealing with faxes. Note, though, difference between faxes and email in that latter is not as instantaneous as former (need to switch on computer; read email; transmission can take a while). Arguably, email is more like opening envelope to read contents. So email might not be governed by Entores rule. If it is not, then postal rule applies, meaning that acceptance occurs as soon as the email is sent. Probably the better view, though, is that email is to be treated as instantaneous communication. 

An important point of departure is that offeree must believe, as reasonable person, that acceptance has been received: Brinkibon. Here P should be entitled to believe that his email has been received-the modem problem is not reasonably foreseeable, and is, in any case, the fault of R. P receives no immediate notice of the problem. Denning's estoppel-based line of argument in Entores also weighs in favour of P. 

A major problem in arriving at a firm conclusion is that we do not know how much of the message is not communicated due to the modem fault. So it will be necessary to take an "even if" line. 

Assuming that, despite the modem problem, the substance of the email is communicated to P what is the result? In The Brimoes, Ct. of App, suggested that letter (which was not protected by postal rule) delivered during normal business hours is assumed to be read within a reasonable time after its delivery, Could not same be argued here? But here the email is sent in the evening, so arguably it could not be assumed to be read until next morning, at the start of normal business hours. This might mean that if R informs P of his desire to retract the offer, before 9a.m., the revocation may reach P before P's acceptance is deemed as communicated to R.