Issue

Is there a valid contract made between Wanda and her parents?

The law of contract submits that any two or more parties who wants to enter into a relationship and wants to abide themselves by mutually decided terms and conditions can enter into a contractual association. The parties who formulate the contract are legally bound to comply with the terms of the contract in order to avoid any kind of breach and its consequences.

A contract can be made when an offer is made by the offer which is affirmed by the offeree in exchange of legal consideration by the parties who are capable to undertake contractual relationship with legal intention. (Graw, 2012)

When the offeror communicates his willingness to an offeree to abide with certain stated terms and conditions, then, such communication is called an offer. As per (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892) an offer can be made orally or verbally or by conduct. The offeree when confirms the offer made to him absolutely, then, it is an acceptance in law resulting in agreement formation and is held in (Crown v Clarke, 1927).

The offer and acceptance must be made by the parties with an intention which is not gratuitous but is made with legal intent.

The legal intention of the parties is the contractual elements which enforces the promises upon the parties to the contract. Legal intention simply submits that the parties are willing to abide by the parties as per the law of the land and if any party does not abide by the contractual terms then they are willing to face the legal consequences and is held in (Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd, 1989).

In (Balfour v Balfour, 1919) it was analyzed that the parties sharing family or domestic relationship does not intent to abide by their promises legally. As per (Jones v Padavatton, 1969), relationship which is domestic lacks legal intention. Likewise, in (Rose and Frank & Co v Crompton, 1923) when there is presence of commercial association, then there is a presumption of the presence of legal relationship. (Waddams, 2010)

But, if the parties can prove that they intent to abide by the contract legally even if they are in domestic relationship, then the contract is deem to exist amid the parties and is enforceable in law and is held in (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc, 2002).

When the parties exchange promises then such parties must be capable as per the law of the land. The parties must have attained the age of majority and must not be of unsound mind and is analyzed in  (Nash v Inman, 1908).

The law is now applied.  

Now, Wanda is seventeen years old and thus is not a major as per the law of the land. She is about to complete her college and the unit is very hard. Her parents are worried whether she will be able to pass the unit or not and thus they made a promise to her that clothes worth $ 3,000 will be given to her if she completes her clothes with High Distinction. Wanda agrees to the same.

Relevant Law

Thus, an offer is made by the parents and the same is accepted by Wanda.

Now, the parents and Wanda are in family relationship so there is absence of legal intention by applying the law in (Balfour v Balfour, 1919). But, as per the facts, Wanda worked very hard on the promises made by her parents that they will buy her clothes if she gets High Distinction. Thus the parties made promises with the intention to comply and abide with the same legally. Thus, by applying (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc, 2002) there is presence of legal intention between the parties.

So, as Wanda got High Distinction which she got by acting as per the promise made her parent. So, there is legal intention.

Also, Wanda is not a major when the contract is made by her with parents. But, the promises are exchanged  for her benefit and thus as per (Nash v Inman, 1908) the contract is valid between them.

Conclusion

So, Wanda can bring a legal action against her parents if the parents do not abide by the contractual terms and made her buy new clothes of $ 3000.

Can the seller be held liable for violation of contract and can be sued by Wanda?

To form a contract, there is a need that the offeror must make initiative and must make an offer to the offeree which must come within his knowledge. The offeree then has the duty to confirm the offer so received by him which is an acceptance in law. The compilation of the offer and acceptance in law results in agreement formation.  

But, in contract law, at times there is no offer that is made by the offeror. Rather, the person decides to seek offer from the general public or from particular class. This seeking of offer is called an invitation to treat. The invitation is not an offer in law and any person who relies on the invitation has the obligation to make offer to the inviter. The confirmation of the offer by inviter makes an agreement in law. As per (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, 1953), display of goods is nothing but an invitation and not an offer. (Chew, 2014)

Ms Wands went to shop and visited a shop wherein she decided to buy a dress which is tagged ‘dollar 200 or less’ and was a ‘Bomme shell’ dress. The dress was displayed and by applying (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, 1953) it is clear that it is an act of invitation by the shop. So, Wands should provide an offer to the shop.

The shop which is an inviter must confirm the offer to make an agreement between them. The shop however did not confirm the offer of Wanda and submitted that the dress is worth $800 and is wrongly displayed as ‘dollar 200 or less’.

Since, there is no confirmation of offer by the shop, thus, there is no agreement amid the two.

Conclusion

The shop has made an invitation by displaying the dress. The act by Wanda is an invitation and it is only when the shop confirms the offer, there is a contract amid the two.

Application of law

Are any actions that can be initiated by Wanda against the manager for his conduct?

The compliance of an offer supported by an acceptance along with consideration, legal intention and parties capacity results in the formation of the contract. The parties are then bound by the contract and must comply with the contract terms. The terms and conditions that are discussed by the parties must be conducted with honesty and good faith.

At times, one party to the contract makes a factual statement of fact which is not true in nature. The untrue in nature of the statement is within the knowledge of the party who is making it. The statement is communicated to the other party of the contract with an intention to deceive such party so that a contractual relationship can be established by such party. Any contract which is based on such untrue factual statement is suffered from misrepresentation and the aggrieved party has the right to sue the other party for misrepresentation. Any damages that are suffered by the aggrieved party must be borne by the party making the misrepresentation. (Google Inc v ACCC, 2013). The aggrieved party also has the right to terminate the contract and sue for damages and compensation. (Cartwright, 2012)

The facts reveal that before Wanda bought a dress from the shop, there are few representations that are made by the manager of the store. The manager specifically submitted that the dress that Wanda is intended to buy is made of the fabric that is best and thus he is not able to reduce the price of the dress below $600.

It is the factual statement of fact that is made by the manager to Wanda with an intention that Wanda would rely on the said statement of fact and thus enters into a contractual relationship with him and buys the dress. It is but submitted that the statement was not true in nature. The dress material was not the best fabric and the dress is also not an original Bonne shell dress. The dress was not prepared in London and tore off when the same was worn by Wanda for the first time.

Thus, an untrue statement was made with an intention to induce Wanda. Wanda bought the dress by relying on the said statement. Thus, there is a clear misrepresentation by the manager.

Conclusion 

Since misrepresentation is incurred by manager over Wanda thus, she can terminate the contract and sue for damages.

Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1989).

Balfour v Balfour (1919).

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892).

Carter, J. (2013). The Construction of Commercial Contracts. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cartwright, J. (2012). Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-disclosure. Australia: Sweet & Maxwell.

Chew, C. (2014). Business Law Guidebook. Australia: Oxford University Press.

Crown v Clarke (1927).

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002).

Google Inc v ACCC (2013).

Graw, S. (2012). An Introduction to the Law of Contract. Australia: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.

Jones v Padavatton (1969).

Nash v Inman (1908).

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1953).

Rose and Frank & Co v Crompton (1923).

Waddams, S. (2010). The Law of Contracts. Australia: Canada Law Book.