Offer and Acceptance. Intension to Create Legal Relations Essay

Offer and Acceptance. Intension to Create Legal Relations - Essay ExampleA survey was conducted and thus it objectively appears that the offer was genuine and that Belinda believed that the offer was genuine. The offer and acceptance also appear to meet the requirement that a valid acceptance must mirror the ground of the offer.3 On the facts of the case for discussion, Belinda accepted Toms offer as they were presented to her. Therefore it can be argued that a valid offer and acceptance was made. The straits is therefore whether or not Belinda was free to withdraw her acceptance. Only if the acceptance was subject to the condition that Belinda receives a satisfactory survey would allow her to withdraw her acceptance. until now the condition must be clearly stated as a prerequisite for acceptance.4 Based on the facts of the case for discussion, the offer and acceptance were both unconditional. inclined that the offer and acceptance were both made pursuant to the common law rules for valid offer and acceptance, Belinda has entered into legally binding contract with Tom. ... There is a impudence however, that agreements between social and family groups are not generally binding contracts.6 In Balfour v Balfour, it was held however, that where there are orders and agreements between close members of a social or family group, the presumption that there is no intention to create legal relations is a rebuttable presumption.7 The presumption can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.8 The loan syndicate between Matt, Mark, Luke and Jon is arguably an arrangement between a close social group as they are colleagues and the arrangement has nothing to do with their work. The presumption that as a social group there is no intention to create legal relations can be rebutted if it can be shown that by fall in the syndicate and trusting the tag end purchases and collection of winnings to another member of the syndicate, the parties were putting themselves at a disa dvantage. The disadvantage arises because, they could have purchased the winning lottery ticket themselves and collected their own winnings. It was held in Parker v Clark that the presumption can be rebutted where a party to the agreement is disadvantaged by the agreement.9 A similar arrangement occurred in Simpkins v Pays. In this case, a woman together with her granddaughter and tenant agreed to enter a competition as one entrant nether the womans name and that any winnings would be shared between them. However, when the woman collected the winnings she decided against paying the tenant a share of the receipts. It was held that when the parties shared the competition fee there was an intention to create legal relations and thus there was a legally binding contract.10 It