The law when it comes to this car advert

BusinessStudent

Hello All.

Im need desperate help with this for a law assignment.

1. An car advert is placed in a local newspaper offering a prize bonaza, the terms and conditions at the bottom of the ad state:

'We guarantee that if you buy a car from us and give us notice in writing that you could have bought it cheaper at any other retailer within Barsetshire in the same day, we will refund the whole of the purchase price. Offer to remain open for the month of March. Any claim to be received within 5 days of purchase'

A friend purchases a car from the company on 7th March, however on the 12th of March he finds the same car cheaper from another dealer. John (my friend) immediately telephones where he purchased the car to inform them he found it cheaper, he also posted a letter claiming her money back. The letter arrived 14th March.

1.Has my friend accepted the contract?
2.Has the contract been broken? - if so by who?
3.What possible remedies are avalible, what would the courts decide?
4.What course of action would you recommend to both partners?

Thank you all

dmg24

Why do I think that John is not actually your friend, and that in fact this is an essay for your contract law module?

BusinessStudent

dmg24 wrote: »

Why do I think that John is not actually your friend, and that in fact this is an essay for your contract law module?

Correct it is actually for an essay, but I've used an example of John to keep it simple. Im very stuck on it.

Enterprise_1701C

It clearly states 'on the same day' (assuming a typo in your original!!), therefore he gets no refund.

Yes, the offer is open till the end of March, but he has to find it at the same price on the same day as he bought it.

That is my interpretation anyway.

dmg24

OK, now we're being honest!

Jane Blackford's point is valid, but then you need to go on to the possibility that John could prove that the price was lower.

If that was the case then you need to consider the Carbolic Smokeball case, and that the advertisement was actually a 'mere puff'. To get to this point you need to explain offer, acceptance and invitation to treat.

On the possibility that the advertisement was found to be an offer, you need to look at the rules of how an offer can be accepted - telephone and postal rules.

Any more help just give me a shout x

hurdy

Haven't a clue what you're on about, but I love the fact you're willing to help. Thanks from me!

dmg24

Am off to bed now BS, but will be about tomorrow if you need anymore help x

MINCER_2

BusinessStudent wrote: »

'We guarantee that if you buy a car from us and give us notice in writing that you could have bought it cheaper at any other retailer within Barsetshire in the same day ...

The wording says 'it' not 'the same make and model' so in theory the only way to claim would be to sell it on to another dealer the same day and ask him to advertise it for sale again for a penny less then you paid for it.

You could argue that a reasonable person might assume that 'it' means 'the same make and model' , but it doesn't actually say that.

aqueoushumour01

BusinessStudent wrote: »

Hello All.


'We guarantee that if you buy a car from us and give us notice in writing that you could have bought it cheaper at any other retailer within Barsetshire in the same day, we will refund the whole of the purchase price. Offer to remain open for the month of March. Any claim to be received within 5 days of purchase'

A friend purchases a car from the company on 7th March, however on the 12th of March he finds the same car cheaper from another dealer. John (my friend) immediately telephones where he purchased the car to inform them he found it cheaper, he also posted a letter claiming her money back. The letter arrived 14th March.

1. The language used 'could have' doesn't require the car to have been bought on that day only for it to have been possible to purchase the car somewhere else cheaper on that day. However, 'it' isn't very specific and could be interpreted as the actual car sold at the dealer. This specific car was not available anywhere else i.e. you can't find 'it' cheaper anywhere else as 'it' is only available at one place.

2. The letter was received on the 14th. It states in T&C's that any claim must be received within 5 days of purchase.

Baby_J_2

Also, was the offer open at the other car dealer's on the same day as the day the car was purchased? As if it were, then you would have been able to buy the car cheaper elsewhere on the same day.

simate

Your English needs attention first lol

1. An car advert (A car....)

bonaza (bonanza)

he also posted a letter claiming her money back. (he or she, or ladyboy lol)

avalible (available)

Hopefully it's just because you typed it out quickly on here lol

Anyway, I'd have said that if the other car that was available cheaper on the same day that the original car was bought then the claim would be valid.

However, in your example it states that the claim must received within 5 days of purchase. As the letter was received 2 days after the 5 day limit then there is no claim to be made.

That's the way I see it anyway.