Business Law Essay

Under the lawfulity governing aim and credenza, a sound offer has been made through an advertisement. In order for an offer to be accepted, the party essential entirely accept the offer. The rules governing adoption has to be positive non passive. Silence does non urinates 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 can be nearfully accepted by him alone and in order to stay off complications, acceptance is to be in writing received by the offeror or if it is orally, it must be hear by the offereor.In applying the law to the facts of the geek before us, Wayne has made a valid offer to give away his domiciliate for $2 million dollars. In this case, Wayne is the offeror and Scott, Kyle and Magdelene are the offeree. Scott offers to spoil the house for $1. 8 million dollars and Wayne say nothing. In this case, Scott has now take the offeror and Wayne is the offeree as a counter offer has been made. Looking at the principles of acceptance, an acceptance made must be positive not passive.Wayne said nothing about the offer therefore there was no chat between them of any sort of acceptance. This would highlight that the fact that silence does not form acceptance as per case of Felthouse v Bindly (1862) The offeror cannot jaw acceptance just because the offeree does not reject the offer. Therefore, Scott wanting to take judicial action towards Wayne is not valid as there was no form of acceptance in either form of writing or orally. When Kyle came to fascinate the property, he agrees to Waynes offer of $2 million dollars but drug-addicted to contract. Wayne agreed.The definition of sphere to contract is that both parties are conformable to the terms of the offer but propose that they negotiate a buckram contract on the basis of the offer. Referring to the case of Yap Eng Thong v Faber Union, the court found the agreement to sell a house subject to contract was not binding. Hence, Kyle wanting to take legal action towards Wayne leave 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 interchange 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 have heard of it. The notice of revocation does not necessarily come from Wayne himself. In shutdown 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 need not come from the offe ror himself. Which links to the next point of acceptance must be positive and not passive. Silence does not make 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 guarantee acceptance and either party can withdraw before signing .