for my law homework make up question

The law is a set of legal rules that governs the way members of society interact
Laws are required in society to regulate behaviour of the individual to correspond with what is considered to be socially acceptable

Public Law – deals with government and its relationships with individuals
International Law – Countries’ obligation to each other

Private (Civil) Law – deals with disagreements between private individuals

Public law covers three sub-divisions:
Constitutional law covers the different branches of the state: Executive, legislative and judiciary.
Administrative law regulates international trade, manufacturing, pollution, taxation, and the like
Criminal law involves state imposed sanctions for individuals or companies in order to achieve justice and social order.

Private (Civil) Law covers:
Civil law
Contract law or law of obligations
Law of torts
Property law
Family law
Employment law
Commercial law
Corporate law
Competition law

Privy Council (Although we may see a move to the Caribbean Court of Justice in the near future, for criminal matters)
Deals with appeals from the Court of Appeal
Supreme Court {Court of Appeal & High Court}
High Court
Indictable criminal matters (require jury)
Civil matters over TT$15,000
Family matters for married couples only
Appeals go to the Court of Appeal

Magistrates Court – Court of first instance for
Summary criminal offences
Civil matters
Family Court

International/Regional Law
Constitution
Statutes/Legislation/Ordinances
Case Law

International conventions are generally referred to as treaties
May also be called agreements, conventions, covenants, protocols or exchanges of notes

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

The Constitution is the set of rules under which we agree to live and interact with our fellow citizens and the State,

Acts relevant to Businesses:*
Registration of Business Names
Companies
Corporation Tax
Equal Opportunity
Fair Trading
Sale of Goods
Workmen’s Compensation

*This list is not exhaustive

Stare Decis is a Latin phrase meaning: “to stand on decided cases” – Judge made law
Makes the laws stable and predictable.
Increases judicial efficiency by relieving courts of having to reinvent legal principles for each case brought before them

Precedents are judicial decisions that give rise to legal principles that can be applied in future cases based upon similar facts.
Precedents and other forms of positive law, such as statutes, constitutions, and regulations, are referred to as binding authority and must be followed

Creative Powers – Case Law which relates to a narrower view of the law

Interpretive Powers – The Courts MUST follow the legislation… and read “as far as possible” to

What is Legal personality?

Legal personality – To have legal personality means to be capable of having legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as to enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity (the ability of any legal person to amend rights and obligations)
There are two kinds of legal persons:
(1) Natural persons (individuals)
(2) Judicial persons (groups of persons)
While people acquire legal personhood when they are born, judicial persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with the law (registered)

After registration, a company becomes “incorporated” and gains “legal personality”
Legal personality – allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity for legal purposes

Commonwealth Development Corporation (Privileges And Immunities) Act 1996
Schedule – Part I
1 (a) to contract;
(b) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property; and
(c) to be a party to legal proceedings
*

Sole Proprietorship/Sole Trader
Owned and run by one owner
Owner and business are one and the same
Partnership
Association of owners in an unincorporated company
Corporation
a group of people authorised by law to act as a legal personality
Separate powers, duties, and liabilities

Limited Liability –
Registered under the Companies Act 1995, as amended
Financial responsibility is restricted to the company
Personal assets cannot be used to pay company debts
Unlimited Liability –
Not registered
Indefinite extent of liability to pay the company’s debts
Extends beyond investments in company to personal assets
*

Sole Trader
Total personal liability for business debts
Partnerships
Unlimited liability for debts unless registered as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
All will be liable even if one partner’s actions caused the business to be sued
*

Types of companies with Limited Liability
Corporations
Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) – United States variation
Debt responsibility is limited to his/her share of investment in the business
If the business is sued or forced to close, the personal assets are safe
*

Strict liability – Legally responsible for damages or loss caused by act or omission, despite fault. Just need to prove causal link
Vicarious liability – Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment
Primary liability: the “directing mind”
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153
*

House of Lords judgement in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897) AC 22
One of the fundamental principles of company law is that a company has a personality that is distinct from that of its shareholders.
*

Facts:
Mr. Salomon had a boot factory. He set up a company and sold the business to it for £39,000.00. The owners of the company were Mr. Salomon and members of his family.
To complete the sale of the boot factory, Mr. Salomon lent the company £10,000.00 and secured it by a charge (mortgage) on the company’s property
The company failed and Mr. Salomon ‘paid himself’
*

Mr. Salomon’s family sued him arguing the company was a front for his own business activity
The court held that the company was properly created and was a separate entity. It was irrelevant that ownership and management stayed in the same hands. The money borrowed money and was legally liable to pay it back to a secured creditor as opposed to any other creditors
*

Advantages:
One contract, instead of multiple contracts for all shareholders
Personal property is protected after failure of the business
Disadvantages:
Lack of ethics by shareholders. If the company fails, they aren’t personally affected
Outside investors are the real losers.
*

The “Veil of Incorporation” protects members from being held responsible for the company liabilities
*

This is used to avoid abuse of the separate identity principle:
Human Characteristics
Fraud
Avoidance of legal duty
Agency
Single economic Entity
*

The veil will be lifted if the company displays a human characteristic
Director acts or makes a decision independently from the company
Signs cheque/contract/other document in his/her name and not company’s name
Can also happen if advice is negligently given by a Director, but it must meet the “Hedley Byrne” requirements.
*

The corporate veil may be lifted where the company is used to perpetuate a fraud:
Re Darby; ex p Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95
*

Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. v Horne [1933] Ch 935
Mr. Horne’s contract stated that if he left Gilford Motor, he was not allowed to solicit customers.
He set up a company offering a cheaper price, but after legal consultation, he was told that it was still illegal.
*

He then started a new company in the names of his wife and friend thinking that “technically” he wasn’t breaching the clause in the previous employment contract because (1) this was a company and (2) it was not in his name.
The Court of Appeal held that the business was a sham to circumvent the covenant in his previous employment contract
*

Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v. Birmingham Corporation [1939] 4 All ER 116
The parent company had full and exclusive access to the subsidiary’s books; the subsidiary had no employees other than a manager; it occupied the parent’s premises for no consideration, and the only evidence of its purportedly independent existence was its name on the stationery.
*

The following 6 questions will determine whether a company is carrying on its own business or that of the parent company:
Were the profits of the subsidiary those of the parent company?
Were the persons conducting the business of the subsidiary appointed by the parent company?
Was the parent company the “head and brains” of the venture?
Did the parent company govern the venture?
Were the profits made by the subsidiary company made by the skill and direction of the parent company?
Was the parent company in effective and constant control of the subsidiary?
*

The exception was followed in Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) when the word “puppet” was used to describe the subsidiary.
*

The Roberta (1937) 58 LI LR 159
The veil may be lifted to look at the economic reality of the situation; i.e., does the holding company control and dictate?
In this case a parent company was held liable on a bill of lading signed on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiary, the court saying that the subsidiary was a separate entity in name alone and probably for the purposes of taxation.
However, Roskill LJ in The Albazero [1977] AC 774, 807
Held that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity with separate rights and responsibilities
*

But… Robert Goff LJ in Bank of Tokyo Ltd. v Karoon [1987] AC 45n:
“… we are concerned not with economics, but with law. The distinction between the two is, in law, fundamental and cannot here be abridged.”
Then… Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 – The holding company is separate from its subsidiaries
*

The ability of the firm to sue and be sued: Lee v Lee’s Air Farming
Transfer of property: Farrar v Farrar’s Ltd
Insurable interests: Macaura v Northern Trust Assurance Co Ltd
Compensation: Shareholders cannot get compensation for company failure
O’Neill v Ryan et al (1993)
*

Limited liability
Perpetual succession

Liability in tort and crime
The rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843)– individual shareholders can’t sue; the company must sue
*

No legal filing requirements or fees and no professional advice is needed to set it up.
You just literally go into business on your own.
Simplicity – one person does not need a complex organisational structure.
*

Not a particularly useful business form for raising capital (money).
For most sole traders the capital will be provided by personal savings or a bank loan.
Unlimited liability – the most important point to note in terms of comparing this form to the company in that there is no difference between the sole trading business and the sole trader himself.
The profits of the business belong to the sole trader but so do the losses.
As a result he has personal liability for all the debts of the business.
*

No formal legal filing requirement involved in becoming a partnership beyond the minimum requirement that there be two members of the partnership.
Easier to obtain capital as there can be up to 20 members of the partnership, all of whom could pool their investment within the partnership.
*

Companies are designed to make it easy to raise capital.
Companies have the ability to subdivide their capital into small amounts, allowing them to draw in huge numbers of investors who also benefit from the sub-division by being able to sell on small parts of their investment.
Limited liability also minimises the risk for investors and is said to encourage investment.
*

It is also said to allow managers to take greater risk in the knowledge that the shareholders will not lose everything.
The constitution of the company provides a clear organisational structure which is essential in a business venture where you have large numbers of participants.
*

Forming a company and complying with company law is expensive and time consuming.
It also appears to be a very complex organisational form for small businesses, where the Board of Directors and the shareholders are often the same people
*

Keith was recently left $100,000.00 in his uncle’s will and he’s undecided about how to invest it. His friend Jack has just applied for a patent for a mouse trap he created and in which he has invested heavily. He wants Keith to join in a partnership with him. He paints a very optimistic picture to Keith by telling him he has secured investment from another friend, Kamla. While Keith thinks the business can succeed, he is concerned about Jack’s inability to be economical with the truth.
1. Should Keith join a partnership with Jack. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of this move?
2. Keith just got married but still wants to invest. Suggest to Keith what other options he has if he wants to go through with the investment.
*

What is Legal personality?

After registration, a company becomes “incorporated” and gains “legal personality”
Legal personality – allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity for legal purposes

The “Veil of Incorporation” protects members from being held responsible for the company liabilities
*

This is used to avoid abuse of the separate identity principle:
Human Characteristics
Fraud
Avoidance of legal duty
Agency
Single economic Entity
*

The corporate veil may be lifted where the company is used to perpetuate a fraud:
Re Darby; ex p Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95
*

The exception was followed in Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) when the word “puppet” was used to describe the subsidiary.
*

The Roberta (1937) 58 LI LR 159
The veil may be lifted to look at the economic reality of the situation; i.e., does the holding company control and dictate?
In this case a parent company was held liable on a bill of lading signed on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiary, the court said that the subsidiary was a separate entity in name alone and probably for the purposes of taxation.
However, Roskill LJ in The Albazero [1977] AC 774, 807
Held that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity with separate rights and responsibilities
*

Limited liability
Perpetual succession

Liability in tort and crime
The rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) – individual shareholders can’t sue; the company must sue
*

Features of a Contract
Pacta sunt Servanda – “agreements must be kept”
Legally binding agreement
Does not have to be in writing; one exception being contracts to sell land
Can be in writing, oral or inferred by conduct
Bi-lateral or lateral

Types of contracts
Can be classified into 3 types: business, consumer or private
Can be defined according to subject matter: e.g., Sale of goods, Tenancies, Services, Employment
Can be classified according to the way they are concluded: orally, in writing, by conduct

Freedom to contract (1)
“…if there is one thing more than another that public policy requires, is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty in contracting, and that their contracts, when entered into freely and voluntarily, shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by the Courts of Justice”
Sir George Jessel in Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v Sampson (1875)

Freedom to contract (2)
However, pure and unrestricted freedom to contract has recently been restricted by the Courts because of the inequality of bargaining power by some parties.
Especially necessary for consumers, employees and tenants

Unilateral v Bilateral Contracts
Unilateral – Promise for an Act

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256

Bilateral – Promise for a Promise

Requirements for a valid contract (1)
Offer
Acceptance
Intention
Consideration
All MUST be present for the contract to be valid
Other requirements:
Capacity
Free Consent
Certainty of object
Possibility of performance

Requirements for a valid contract (2)
If the requirements are missing the contract can be:
Void – Was never valid (void ab initio)
Voidable – Binds one party; valid until the other party chooses to rescind

Offer
A proposition made by one party to another on terms that are fixed or capable of being fixed, with the intention that it will be binding when accepted by the other person.
“Do you want to buy my watch?”

Invitation to Treat
Fisher v Bell 1961

The stage of a transaction where one party invites the other to make an offer

Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale

Engagement Ring Law
According to the UK’s Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 – Section 3(2); “The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.”
In other words, the engagement ring is a gift and the ring-receiver is not obliged to return it.

Nature of Agreement
Courts will take an objective approach to contracts – Reasonableness test
Two exceptions:
One party knows that the other party has made a mistake in the terms of the agreement – Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]: 10c per lb instead of 10c per skin
One party should have known that the other party made a mistake – Scriven Brothers v Hindley ; Centrovincial Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance Ltd. [1983]

Auctions
Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962

An auctioneer will make an invitation to treat, and bidders will make offers of what they are willing to pay. The auctioneer will then accept an offer and a contract is formed. There is, however, in cases not involving a reserve price, an obligation by the auctioneer to sell to the highest bidder. This obligation arises from a collateral contract between the auctioneer and highest bidder under which the auctioneer offered to sell to the highest bidder and the highest bidder accepts

Social agreement
A social agreement is an agreement not enforceable by law.
E.g.: John makes Jason his best man, so Jason promises to pay for John’s honeymoon. However, the two men had a disagreement at the wedding and Jason now refuses to pay sponsor the honeymoon.

“An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed.”
Treitel

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893]
CSB made a product that they claimed would keep the flu away from anyone who took it. They published it in the papers claiming that anyone who got the flu after taking it would be rewarded with £100.
Mrs. Carlill claimed that she got the flu, but CSB refused to pay, so she sued for breach of contract.
Ruling: Usually, acceptance must be communicated, but one who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of goods by means of an advertisement impliedly waives notification of acceptance if his purpose is to sell as much product as possible

Powell v Lee (1908):
P applied for job and received informal acceptance from a board member. After the board changed its mind, P sued the school.
R v Clarke (1927)
Reward “for such information as shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murders“
Held: Necessary to act in “reliance on” an offer in order to accept it

Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co. (1915)
The claimant gave evidence to the authorities which led to the arrest of some jewel thieves. He then discovered that the defendant had previously advertised a reward for such information. The defendant refused payment.
Held: the defendant was not legally obliged to pay as no contract to do so existed between the parties, since the offer of the reward had not been communicated to the claimant prior to his giving the information

Williams v Carwardine (1833)
Mrs. Carwardine’s husband was murdered, so she offered a reward of £20 for whomever would give information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of the murderers. Mrs. Williams knew about the reward, but did not say anything about her husband being the murderer until he savagely beat her.
Mrs. C refused to pay, stating that Mrs. W’s reason for giving evidence was not for the reward, but for revenge

A vague offer cannot be accepted
Loftus v Roberts (1902) – “salary to be arranged”
Scammel v Ousten (1941) – no certainty as to the terms of the agreement

An agreement to make an agreement or an agreement to negotioate at a later date will not constitute a valid contract. It will be void ab initio (void from the beginning/never existed):
Walford v Miles (1992)
Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)

Invitation to treat – invitation for others to make an offer

Public Advertisements – Partidge v Crittenden (1968)
Goods in a shop window – Fisher v Bell (1961)
Goods on a shelf – Timothy v Simpson (1834)

Offer can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance, but it MUST be communicated to the offeree before acceptance
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
1st October – V posted letter offering goods for sale
8th October – V revoked the offer, which arrived on 20th Oct.
11th October – B accepted offer
15 October – B posted letter confirming acceptance

Payne v Cave (1789) – auction is invitation to treat until hammer goes down
Buyers & Auctioneers
Warlow v Harrison (1859) – Owner made highest bid to “win” auction to prevent underselling. There was a breach of contract between auctioneer and highest bona fide bidder, therefore the plaintiff has the right of action against the auctioneer.
Barry v Davies [2000] – A “without reserve” auction cannot be cancelled because of low bid
Buyers & Sellers

McGowan & Co. v Gomes [1891-93] L.R.B.G. 171
Facts: A merchant’s stock was offered for sale in an advertisement headed “highest offer gets it” and in which tenders were invited. The Plaintiff made a tender; the defendants refused to sell at the price tendered, there being only one tender.
Held: The advertisement constituted an offer to sell, and there being no condition in the advertisement that there should be more than one offer, the plaintiff’s tender was an acceptance which bound the defendant.

Situations where the revocation of an offer does not need to be communicated to the offeree
Where offers are made to the world at large
Where communication does not occur because of the offeree’s conduct; e.g., changing address or receiving mail but not reading it

An acceptance is a final and unqualified assent to the terms of an offer
Acceptance Rules
Acceptance must be unconditional
A counter-offer is not an acceptance
Acceptance must be communicated

Prohibits an offeree from changing the terms of that offer
Counter-Offer negates initial offer

Hyde v Wrench (1840)
W offered to sell a farm to H for 1000. H offered to pay 950, but W rejected the offer. H then agreed to pay the 1000, but W refused to sell him the farm
Stevenson, Jaques, & Co. v McLean [1880]
However, a request for more information is not a counter-offer.

Cannot form basis of contract even though party to whom made may have acted upon it.
Re Fickus (1900)
Supply of information cannot amount to an offer
Harvey v Facey (1893)
H: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid;”
F: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.”
H:”We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you.

“Frequently an offeree, while making a positive acceptance of the offer, also makes a request or suggestion that some addition or modification be made. So long as it is clear that the meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally to accept the offer whether such request is granted or not, a contract is formed.”

Masters v Cameron (1954) [Australian] – Initial judgment suggested a contract, but was reversed on appeal.
Ardente v Horan (1976) [American]

Acceptance must be according to method unless it does not disadvantage offerer and gets there in the same amount of time as the prescribed method – Yates v Pulleyn (1975): Ordinary post instead of recorded
Silence is not acceptance

Silence is not acceptance – Felthouse v Bindley (1862): “If I hear no more from him, I consider the horse mine…”

Acceptance must actually be communicated: “receipt rule” – Adams v Lindsell (1818)
2nd September – Offer letter to sell goods asking for “reply in the post”
5th September – Offer received and acceptance sent
9th September – Acceptance received, but goods were sold on the 8th

Courts: Binding contract

Effective communication of acceptance by letter, is on posting… until
Entores Ltd. v Miles Far East Corp. [1955]
The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror.

Requirements for a valid contract
Offer
Acceptance
Intention
Consideration
All MUST be present for the contract to be valid
Other requirements:
Capacity
Free Consent
Certainty of object
Possibility of performance

Consideration Definition
Benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee
Currie v Misa (1875)
Types of consideration:
Executory – a promise for a promise in the future
Executed – a promise for an act that is wholly performed at the time of contract (usually seen in reward situations)
Past Consideration – promise of payment comes after the act

Examples
Are these consideration?
1. “I Promise you $10 if it rains tomorrow!”
2. “I promise you $10 if you pass your exam!”

Consideration
You cannot sue for breach of contract if there is no consideration.
Eg. If A promises to give B $100, B cannot sue A if A changes his/her mind.
A gift is not a contract, unless done by deed.

Rules of consideration (1)
Consideration does not have to be equivalent
Chappell & Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd. (1960)

Consideration must be sufficient. Not:

Natural love and affection – Bret v J S (1600):

Promise to do the right thing – White v Bluett (1853)

Rules of consideration (2)
Past consideration is not good consideration
Re McArdle (1951) – Wife of son repaired house for father-in-law who died. Document was signed by next of kin to pay after sale of the house. Never paid.
Lampleigh v Braithwait [1615] & Re Casey’s Patents (1892) – Good consideration
Consideration was by request
Roscorla v Thomas (1842) – Not good consideration
Receipt for horse after sale

Rules of consideration (3)
Already required to do so under contract – Stilk v Myrick (1809
Exception; unsafe voyage: Hartley v Ponsonby [1857]
Both cases involved extra payment for crew members who jumped ship

Existing Contractual Duty
Williams v Roffey (1990)

When a party to an existing contract later agrees to pay an extra “bonus” in order to ensure that the other party performs his obligations under the contract, then that agreement is binding if the party agreeing to pay the bonus has thereby obtained some new practical advantage or avoided a disadvantage.
In this case there were benefits to Roffey including
(a) making sure Williams continued his work
(b) avoiding payment under a damages clause of the main contract if Williams was late
(c) avoiding the expense and trouble of getting someone else. Therefore, Williams was entitled to payment.

Third party consideration
Price v Easton (1833)
John promises to pay Mary $20 if her son washes his car. After Mary’s son washes John’s car, he decides not to pay.
Can Mary sue John?
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) – Fathers of a couple getting married promised to give the newlyweds a joint cash gift. Both fathers died. Groom sued wife’s father’s estate.

Existing Statutory Duty
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
Godefroy promised to pay Collins if Collins would attend court and give evidence for Godefroy. Collins had been served with a subpoena. Collins sued for payment.

Existing Public Duty
England v Davidson (1840)
£50 reward to ‘whoever would give such information as should lead to the conviction of the offender or offenders’
Held: The duty of a police officer is the prevention of crime – police officers are not under a duty to provide information
Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. V Glamorgan County Council (1925) – Request for police protection during strike
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club (1987) – Large sums of overtime had to be paid to police officers to police football match

US Comparison:
Existing Public Duty
Gray v Martino (1918) – US

Martino offered Gray, a police officer, a reward if he could determine the identity of persons who had stolen her jewellery. She refused to pay after receiving the information
Held: Public policy forbids outside remuneration for official duties performed by a public servant.

Part-payment of debt
Pinnel’s Case (1602)
If you are bound to pay a certain sum of money, paying a lesser sum does not discharge the debt even though the creditor agrees.

If the Creditor changes his/her mind later and decides to sue for the balance, he will be successful, because you have not provided the consideration promised in the first place!
Confirmed in Foakes v Beer (1884)

Part-payment of debt: Exceptions
Early payment

Substituted performance

Payment of lesser sum in dispute of value of work performed

Promissory estoppel

Promissory Estoppel
When one party depends on the promise or conduct of another and acts in his/her detriment in reliance on that promise.
First established in: Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
Clearly laid down in: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
Fully restated and defined by Lord Denning in: Combe v Combe [1951]

Intention
The parties to a contract must intend to have a contract and be legally bound by it
Intention may be expressed, or implied by conduct

The Courts assume:
Parties to domestic & social agreements do not intend to be legally bound
Parties to business agreements intend to be legally bound

Harvey v Facey [1893]
Harvey: Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Send lowest cash price.
Facey: Lowest cash price for Bumper Hall Pen is £900
Harvey: We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for £900 asked by you.
Was there intention?

“Fun” transaction
An informal contract can contain formal intention
Simpkins v Pays (1955)

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ for my law homework make up question ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now