Introduction
This essay provides legal advice to Mike, who operates a car repair garage and encounters several contractual disputes while expanding into a car washing service. The primary issues revolve around his dealings with New Carwash Company Ltd (NCC) concerning the purchase of a Deluxe automatic car wash machine, including disputes over price and performance, and a secondary issue regarding a payment promise to his niece, Patty. This analysis, aimed at an undergraduate law student audience, explores the principles of contract law under English law, focusing on offer and acceptance, mistake, misrepresentation, and consideration. The essay will assess whether binding contracts were formed, the implications of pricing errors, the machine’s performance issues, and Mike’s obligations to Patty. By applying relevant legal doctrines and case law, it aims to offer a clear resolution to Mike’s dilemmas, while acknowledging limitations where legal outcomes may remain uncertain.
Contract Formation Between Mike and NCC: Offer and Acceptance
The initial point of analysis concerns whether a binding contract was formed between Mike and NCC for the purchase of the Deluxe automatic car wash. Under English contract law, a contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations (Adams, 2020). NCC’s advertisement in the trade magazine, while inviting garage owners to contact them for “unbelievable prices,” is generally considered an invitation to treat rather than a formal offer, as established in cases like Partridge v Crittenden (1968) (Treitel, 2015). Therefore, the advert itself does not constitute a binding offer.
However, Olga’s email on 6 January, quoting a price of £50,000 for the Deluxe model and urging Mike to confirm quickly due to limited stock, arguably constitutes a specific offer. Mike’s response on 8 January via email, and his verbal confirmation during the subsequent phone call stating “Yes, I want to buy,” appears to satisfy the requirement of acceptance. According to Hyde v Wrench (1840), acceptance must be unequivocal and mirror the terms of the offer (Poole, 2016). Mike’s actions suggest such alignment, despite Olga not initially receiving his email due to it being filtered to junk. The objective test in contract law, as seen in Smith v Hughes (1871), prioritises external manifestations of agreement over internal intentions, implying that a contract was likely formed at the price of £50,000 (Cartwright, 2019).
Nevertheless, Mike’s attachment of his own standard terms in the email introduces potential complexity regarding a “battle of the forms.” Following Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979), the last set of terms sent may prevail if they are not explicitly rejected. Yet, since Olga was unaware of Mike’s email, and her phone call elicited a simple acceptance from Mike, it is probable that NCC’s terms, including Clause 5 disclaiming warranty for speed, govern the agreement (Adams, 2020). This issue, however, remains somewhat ambiguous without further evidence of explicit agreement on terms.
The Pricing Mistake: Unilateral Mistake and Rectification
A significant issue arises from Olga’s error in quoting £50,000 instead of £55,000 in her email. This appears to be a unilateral mistake on NCC’s part. In English law, a unilateral mistake regarding terms does not typically void a contract unless it renders the agreement fundamentally different from what was intended, and the other party was aware of the mistake, as per Hartog v Colin & Shields (1939) (Treitel, 2015). Here, Mike was unaware of the error; indeed, he believed the lower price was a competitive offer, especially as it was 10% cheaper than similar models. Consequently, the mistake does not invalidate the contract, and NCC would struggle to rectify the price to £55,000 on this basis alone.
Furthermore, NCC’s subsequent demand for £55,000 after accepting £40,000 (albeit reluctantly) on 28 January raises questions of whether a variation or compromise was agreed. This will be explored further below under consideration and accord.
Performance Issues: Implied Terms and Misrepresentation
Mike’s dissatisfaction with the machine’s speed—handling only 5 cars per hour compared to the market standard of 10—introduces potential claims regarding the quality or fitness for purpose of the goods. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Section 14(2), goods must be of satisfactory quality, which includes fitness for their usual purpose (Poole, 2016). However, NCC’s terms, specifically Clause 5, explicitly exclude warranty as to speed. If NCC’s terms apply, as discussed earlier, this clause likely limits Mike’s ability to claim breach based on performance.
Alternatively, Mike might argue misrepresentation if Olga made specific claims about the machine’s speed during their 6 January conversation that induced him to enter the contract. Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, a false statement of fact made by one party to another, which influences the contract, can provide grounds for remedy if proven (Cartwright, 2019). However, without evidence of such a statement—none is provided in the scenario—Mike’s claim on this basis appears weak. He may, therefore, be bound by the agreed terms and limited in recourse regarding the machine’s performance.
Payment Dispute: Consideration and Accord
NCC’s acceptance of £40,000, despite initially quoting £50,000 and later demanding £55,000, raises issues of whether this constitutes a binding variation. Under English law, a promise to accept less than the owed amount is not generally enforceable without fresh consideration, as established in Foakes v Beer (1884) (Adams, 2020). Here, Mike provides no additional consideration for NCC’s agreement to accept £40,000, and NCC’s financial constraints do not constitute valid consideration. Therefore, NCC could potentially claim the remaining balance up to £50,000, assuming that is the contracted price. Their later demand for £55,000, however, seems unfounded given the earlier analysis of the unilateral mistake.
Mike’s Obligation to Patty: Intention to Create Legal Relations
Finally, regarding Patty, the issue is whether Mike’s promise to pay £500 for her four weeks of work is enforceable. Initially, their arrangement lacks clarity on payment, suggesting a possible social or domestic agreement without an intention to create legal relations, per Balfour v Balfour (1919) (Treitel, 2015). However, Mike’s subsequent promise of £500 after the work was completed could be construed as a unilateral contract or past consideration. Past consideration is generally not valid, as per Re McArdle (1951), unless the work was done at Mike’s request with an implied understanding of payment (Poole, 2016). Given that Mike asked Patty to help, a court might find an implied intention to pay, making the £500 enforceable.
Conclusion
In summary, Mike likely has a binding contract with NCC at £50,000 based on the offer and acceptance evidenced by Olga’s email and his confirmation, though NCC’s terms, including the disclaimer on speed, probably apply. The unilateral pricing mistake does not invalidate the contract, limiting NCC’s ability to claim £55,000, though their acceptance of £40,000 may not preclude a claim for the balance up to £50,000 due to lack of consideration. Mike’s performance concerns are weakened by Clause 5, and without evidence of misrepresentation, remedies appear limited. Regarding Patty, Mike may be obligated to pay £500 if a court finds an implied intention to compensate for her work. Practically, Mike should negotiate with NCC to settle any outstanding balance and honour his promise to Patty to avoid potential legal or relational fallout. These issues highlight the importance of clarity in contractual terms and communication, a critical lesson for any business operator.
References
- Adams, A. (2020) Law for Business Students. 11th edn. Pearson Education Limited.
- Cartwright, J. (2019) Contract Law: An Introduction to the English Law of Contract for the Civil Lawyer. 3rd edn. Hart Publishing.
- Poole, J. (2016) Textbook on Contract Law. 13th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Treitel, G. H. (2015) The Law of Contract. 14th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
[Word Count: 1063]
