body {
font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, Times, serif;
font-size: 12pt;
line-height: 1.5;
margin: 2em;
}
h1, h2 {
font-weight: bold;
}
h1 {
font-size: 14pt;
text-align: center;
}
h2 {
font-size: 12pt;
margin-top: 1.5em;
}
ul {
list-style-type: none;
padding-left: 0;
}
li {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
Assignment Cover Sheet
Student Name: [To be filled by student]
Student ID: [To be filled by student]
Module Title: Contract Law
Assignment Title: Legal Implications of Online Marketplace Transactions
Word Count: 1050 (excluding footnotes, cover page, bibliography, and research record)
Date of Submission: [To be filled by student]
Introduction
This essay examines the legal implications of a transaction initiated through a university online marketplace, focusing on the interactions between Sam, Riley, and Morgan. The scenario involves an advertisement for a tablet, counteroffers, and miscommunications, raising questions about the formation of a legally binding contract under Irish contract law. Using the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) method, this analysis identifies the key legal issues, applies relevant legal principles, and advises the parties on their positions. The discussion primarily revolves around whether a contract has been formed, the effect of Sam’s advertisement, the nature of offers and counteroffers, and the implications of miscommunication. The essay aims to provide a clear understanding of these principles for an undergraduate audience, ensuring that the analysis remains accessible yet grounded in established legal doctrine.
Issue 1: Nature of Sam’s Advertisement
Issue: Does Sam’s online advertisement for the tablet constitute an offer or an invitation to treat?
Law: In contract law, an offer is a clear, definite, and unequivocal expression of willingness by one party to contract on specified terms, with the intention that it will become binding as soon as it is accepted.1 Conversely, an invitation to treat is merely an indication of willingness to negotiate, not an offer that can be accepted to form a contract. Advertisements for goods are generally considered invitations to treat unless they are specific and leave nothing open for negotiation, as established in Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.2
Application: Sam’s advertisement states, “For Sale: Tablet in great condition – €300. First come, first served!” and includes photos, contact details, and a meeting point. While the price and condition are specified, the phrase “first come, first served” suggests an openness to negotiation or multiple potential buyers, aligning more closely with an invitation to treat. Indeed, this mirrors the principle in Partridge v Crittenden, where a similar advertisement was not deemed an offer. Therefore, Sam is not legally bound to sell the tablet to the first person who responds, as his post merely invites others to make offers.
Conclusion: Sam’s advertisement is an invitation to treat, not an offer, meaning no contractual obligations arise from the advertisement itself.
Issue 2: Riley’s Email and Text as a Counteroffer
Issue: Does Riley’s email offering €250 constitute a valid offer, and what is the effect of Sam’s response?
Law: A counteroffer, which varies the terms of the original offer (or invitation to treat), acts as a rejection of any prior offer and creates a new offer that requires acceptance to form a contract.3 This principle is evident in Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132, where a counteroffer was held to terminate the original offer.4
Application: Riley’s email proposing €250 for the tablet is a counteroffer in response to Sam’s invitation to treat. It does not accept the €300 price and instead introduces a new term. Sam’s reply, “Thanks, but I’m sticking to €300,” indicates a rejection of Riley’s counteroffer and does not constitute an acceptance. Furthermore, Riley’s subsequent text and assertion of being the first to respond do not alter the legal position, as the “first come, first served” statement in the advertisement holds no legal weight given its status as an invitation to treat. Consequently, no contract has been formed between Sam and Riley, as there is neither a clear offer nor acceptance matching the terms.
Conclusion: Riley’s email is a counteroffer that Sam rejects. No contract exists between them at this stage.
Issue 3: Morgan’s Message and Deleted Communication
Issue: Does Morgan’s WhatsApp voice note constitute an acceptance, and what are the implications of Sam deleting it?
Law: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror to be effective, unless the offeror has waived the need for communication or acceptance is made by conduct.5 In Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327, it was established that acceptance via instantaneous communication methods (like phone or, arguably, messaging apps) is effective only when received by the offeror.6
Application: Morgan’s voice note expresses a willingness to buy the tablet for €300, matching the advertised price, and could potentially be construed as an offer to contract following Sam’s invitation to treat. However, Sam accidentally deletes the message without listening to it, meaning acceptance (or even the offer from Morgan) was not received. Under the principles in Entores, since the communication was not received, there can be no formation of a contract. Furthermore, Morgan’s assumption that the deal is confirmed and subsequent action of heading to the meeting point does not establish a contract, as Sam has not acknowledged or agreed to the terms. Therefore, despite Morgan’s intentions, the lack of communication prevents any binding agreement.
Conclusion: Morgan’s message does not result in a contract due to Sam’s failure to receive or acknowledge it.
Advice to the Parties
Sam: Sam is under no legal obligation to sell the tablet to either Riley or Morgan at this stage. His advertisement is an invitation to treat, not an offer, and he has not accepted any counteroffers or received Morgan’s communication. However, he should be cautious in future dealings to avoid misunderstandings, perhaps by clarifying response times or communication methods in his advertisement.
Riley: Riley’s counteroffer for €250 was rejected by Sam, and no contract exists. Riley’s reliance on the “first come, first served” phrase has no legal basis, as the advertisement does not constitute a unilateral offer. Riley may wish to make a new offer at the full price if still interested.
Morgan: Morgan has no contractual rights, as their offer was not received by Sam. Morgan should follow up with Sam to confirm interest and ensure communication is received before taking actions such as heading to a meeting point.
Conclusion
This analysis has highlighted the legal nuances of online marketplace transactions under Irish contract law. Sam’s advertisement is an invitation to treat, meaning no immediate contractual obligations arise. Riley’s counteroffer and subsequent communications fail to form a contract due to Sam’s rejection, while Morgan’s offer is ineffective due to non-receipt. Ultimately, no binding agreements exist between the parties. This case underscores the importance of clear communication, explicit offers, and effective acceptance in forming contracts, particularly in informal digital marketplaces. For all parties, understanding these principles can prevent disputes and ensure smoother transactions in the future.
Footnotes
1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.
2. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
3. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132.
4. Ibid.
5. Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327.
6. Ibid.
Bibliography
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.
- Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327.
- Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132.
- Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
Research Record
[Note to Student: As an AI, I am unable to provide screen grabs of case databases used for research. However, the cases cited in this essay—Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Entores v Miles Far East Corp, Hyde v Wrench, and Partridge v Crittenden—are fundamental to contract law and can be accessed via databases such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, or university library resources. I recommend capturing screenshots of these cases from your institution’s legal database to append to this section as evidence of research.]
