Business Law Essay

Under the law governing supply and credenza, a valid maintain has been made through an advertisement. In coiffe for an offer to be accepted, the party must entirely accept the offer. The manages governing credenza has to be positive non passive. Silence does not forms acceptance. The general rule of acceptance is that the acceptance must be received by the offerer, otherwise it has no effect. An offer made to a particular person keister be rightfully accepted by him alone and in order to avoid complications, acceptance is to be in writing received by the offeror or if it is orally, it must be heard by the offereor.In applying the law to the facts of the case before us, Wayne has made a valid offer to sell his dramatics for $2 million dollars. In this case, Wayne is the offeror and Scott, Kyle and Magdelene be the offeree. Scott offers to cloud the house for $1. 8 million dollars and Wayne said nothing. In this case, Scott has nowadays become the offeror and Wayne is the offeree as a counter offer has been made. sounding at the principles of acceptance, an acceptance made must be positive not passive.Wayne said nothing about the offer therefore there was no communication between them of any sort of acceptance. This would highlight that the fact that put away does not form acceptance as per case of Felthouse v Bindly (1862) The offeror cannot impose acceptance just because the offeree does not reject the offer. Therefore, Scott wanting to post legal execution towards Wayne is not valid as there was no form of acceptance in either form of writing or orally. When Kyle came to view the property, he agrees to Waynes offer of $2 million dollars however subject to weightlift. Wayne agreed.The definition of subject to contract is that both parties be agreeable to the terms of the offer but propose that they negotiate a formal contract on the basis of the offer. Referring to the case of Yap Eng whip v Faber Union, the court found the agreement to sel l a house subject to contract was not binding. Hence, Kyle wanting to come to legal action towards Wayne will not be valid as subject to contract does not bind anyone to the contract before signature. In this case, Wayne revoked his offer to Scott and Kyle by selling the house to Magdalene.An offer can be dismissed at any point of time before acceptance s made. In the case of Routledge v Grant (1828), there was offer made to buy the house and acceptance must be made by the offeree in 6 weeks time. In less than 6 weeks, offeror chooses to withdrew his offer, in which he had a right to do so. Furthermore, the revocation is valid as it is communicated to Scott and Kyle since they pay off heard of it. The notice of revocation does not necessarily come from Wayne himself. In conclusion to the case study, both Scott and Kyle cannot bring Wayne to legal action as the offer was revoked before their acceptance was made.Revocation was made being communicated and deprivation not come from t he offeror himself. Which links to the next point of acceptance must be positive and not passive. Silence does not consecrate up acceptance. Hence, Scott wanting to take legal action against Wayne is not valid. As for Kyle, Wayne has the right to sell his property to anyone as long as a formal contract is not signed by any party. Kyle cannot take legal action against Wayne as subject to contract does not ensure acceptance and either party can withdraw before sign language .