The law when it comes to this car advert

RajaStyle

It has been a while since I did law module at uni but here is what i believe ... The contract is valid. Why you ask .... well the ad states 'could have bought it cheaper at any other retailer within Barsetshire in the same day' this means that the car was avaialble for sale on the same day, hence if the friend found the car 3 days later but it was still for sale 3 days earlier the day he bought the car the claim is valid. The 12th is the 5th day after the 7th the last day he can make the claim, As he posted the letter on the 12th it doesn't matter when the car dealer receives the letter, the contract is still valid as a court of law in many cases has stated that the date will be taken as the postmark which is within the time limit. Feel free to prove me wrong, like i said been a while ... but i think this is correct from what i remember. Hence to conclude your friend is allowed a refund.

dmg24

How are you getting on BusinessStudent?

AWOL_2

Ok my thoughts in bullet point

Advertisement to the whole world - Carbolic Smoke Ball. Invitation to treat. In carbolic they deposited £1000 into a bank, therefore expecting to pay out. Nothing hear to make you belive that is the case.

The advertisement is only an invitation to treat. However there was the Hover case offering free flights to everyone who brought a vacume cleaner. Therefore it could be an offer made by the car dealer.

When was offer accepted - this is the postal rule. I forgot the leading case (adams v lin***) or something i believe. Been awhile since i did contract law.
Postal rule says its at the moment the letter is posted, aslong as the person as proof of posting or the posting is witnessed! Postmark is good proof however would the car dealer have kept the envelope?

Also there is another leading case, when offer is accepted by telephone. Contract is only in place once you have establised an offer - and acceptance of offer being made.

Advert is only invitation to treat in my opinion. the buyer when paying for the car makes the offer to purchase, the dealer at that moment accepts the offer by accepting the money! contract has been made at that point subject to conditions above.

Move on to telephone - was that sufficeint notice.
If letter is specified means of notice/acceptance, then that is the only acceptable method. Leading cases on all of these points. If i was to mention them all cases i might aswell do the whole thing for you! ha

Postal rule is important.

I am sure if you follow most of the above points you are on your way to a good mark. Just get all the cases researched and quote them. All the best!

Amys

You also need to look not only at Catbloic, but also at terms and conditions. They follow the case trhough in date order as each thing happens, so start with the car being bought and this is a contract, then look at the terms of that cntract and wheter the 'gurantee' was a term. If it is a term, then break it down, agisn by what has happened when, and if the terms have been complied with. Yes, within the terms there is the need to look at the postal rule, which is valid unless it is specificlaly excluded.

girders

Postal acceptance rule is a red herring here. The money back offer is considered part of the terms of the contract once the contract to buy the car is conclude. The issue then becomes if John has complied with the terms of the refund offer - Firstly John must make sure that the car was available at the other dealer *in Barsetshire* for the lower price *on the same day* he bought the car. Terms and conditions in the advert do not state how a claim is to be made, and it would not be unreasonable to claim by phone (and follow up as per Dealers instructions in phone call) - however difficulty could be proving the content of the phone conversation.

Suggested actions -
John
1) Obtain confirmation in writing from the other dealer of the price of the car on the 7th
2) Get Dealer to confirm in writing the phone call of 12th March

Dealer
1) deny all knowledge of the phone call on 12th March
2) Check every detail of the car to ensure it was the same model/spec - even down to the small negotiables such as rubber mats, 6/12mth road tax, free servicing etc - this appears the Dealer's best chance of avoiding payout. And although defining "it" as the specific car is a nonsense that would never hold up, the specific colour choice would be significant i.e could you by it in black/red etc. (this is on the basis of it being a new car rather than a used car which would make the offer worthless as comparisons of condition/mileage etc would be impossible)
3) pay out.

All MHO and based largely on Scots Law but understand this to be pretty similar on this kind of issue.

---Edit--- Just spotted the it does say "in writing" so (under Scots law anyway) John is stuffed.

devild_2

Here's a suggestion DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK you slacker. Here's another scenario, student is lazy, passes off other peoples' work as own, gets expelled, discuss.

dmg24

No one has done the work for him devild, they have just guided him along the right lines. Therefore no plaigarism has occurred.

devild_2

dmg24 wrote: »

No one has done the work for him devild, they have just guided him along the right lines. Therefore no plaigarism has occurred.

Aslong as this post is included in the footnote and the reference good luck to him/her for being so inventive, but do you think that will really happen?