Contract and Italian Cuisine

Tullula Investments Ltd is a large South Australian company, which owns and operates many hotel and restaurants throughout Australia. Italian cuisine Ltd, a food and catering business whose headquarters atomic number 18 in Brisbane, supplies goods commonly used by businesses such as Tullula Investments Ltd. On September 1, 2000, Italian Cuisine Ltd sent a fax to Tullula Investments Ltd, which drive Can allow latest Speedy rice Cookers at $ coulomb apiece.On October 1, 2000, Tullula Investments Ltd faxed a reply stating Will have four dozen. direct delivery by November 1, 2000. Upon receiving the fax Italian Cuisine Ltd then wrote pricker to Tullula Investments Ltd saying thank you for your fax which is receiving our attention. Subsequently and prior to November 1, 2000, Italian Cuisine Ltd packed the rice cookers and loaded them on a forefront for delivery to Tullula Investments Ltd, but in the beginning the van set out, Tullula Investments Ltd phoned Italian Cuisine Ltd to say that they no longer needed the rice cookers.TaskDiscuss the legitimate aspect of Tullula Investments and Italian Cuisine in relation to the law of crusade. Use event consultations to support your answer.Having get a line the case study, analyse the case in adore to the following categories. Formulate your answer using these categories. Introduction identifies applicable expanse of the law elements of a unanalyzable dumbfoundIdentify the exit(s) passport and acceptance, heading to create legal relationsDefine and examine the laws and principles of offer and invitation to treat (ITT) defend the laws and principles to the fact rules of offer and ITT (objective test). Include pertinent casesApply the laws and principles to the fact rules of acceptance. Include relevant casesApply the laws and principles to the fact issue of revocation. Include relevant casesConclusionCase study answer guide This is the answer guide to the Tallula Investments case study. equalize yo ur response to this guide and make sure you have covered each of these points.State relevant area of law contract, in particular dim-witted contract Outline elements of a simple contract Identify elements with which on that point is a problem offer + acceptance = reason (Has there been a documented offer, which meets all requirements of law? Has there been an unqualified acceptance, which meets all the requirements of contract law?Fax by Italian Cuisine to give away rice cookers at $ one C does non constitute an offer but an intention to trade (ITT) or supply of information. Define and discuss Case reference students may quote any case which discusses the difference between ITT and genuine offer, eg they may apply the test from Carlill v Carbolic to demonstrate their answer or Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) (1953) 1 QB 401 or Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Tallula Investments reply by fax on 1 October, 2000 is not an acceptance but of fer to buy the cookers at $ vitamin C each. Define and discuss Case reference Harvey v Facey (1893)Acceptance define. Apply Italian Cuisines response to Tallula Investments first reply fax receiving attention is not an unqualifiedd acceptance of Tallula Investments offer Silence is not acceptance see Felthouse v Bindley (1862)Revocation define an offer can be revoked before dialogue of acceptance by offeror case reference Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) Apply Therefore Tallula Investments would be entitled to revoke their offer before delivery of goods wants place.Model answer Below is a model answer base on the previous categories. The green highlighted text shows how the law has been applied to the facts. The lily-livered highlighted text shows relevant case citations.The case study deals tih a simple contract, which is not required to be in writing. The elements of a simple contract are 1.Intention to create legal relations 2.Offer and acceptance (an agreement) 3.C onsideration 4.Capacity of the parties 5.Certainty of terms 6.Legality of objectThe important issue in this problem is whether there is an agreement offer and acceptance However, on the first element of intention to create legal relations, it is clearly a business/commercial relationship between Tallula Investments Ltd and Italian Cuisine Ltd and accordingly the presumption is that the parties intend to enter into legal relations. There is no tell apart to rebut this presumption (see Jones v Vernon Pools). The next issue to be dealt with is the offer. Has Italian Cuisine made an offer to Tallula in the fax September 1, 2000 which read Can offer latest speedy Rice Cookers at $100 eachIn my view this is not a genuine offer, it is more in the genius of an invitation to treat. The words can offer is not a clear proposal to sell the cookers at the stated price but is simply suggesting that the Speedy Rice Cookers are available for sale. The test in deciding between an offer and an invitation to treat was set out in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke screwball Co which held that an invitation to treat is a request for offers and determined by the common person test.Clearly here, we have an inducement sent out by Italian Cuisine to Tallula to enter into negotiationsfor the purchase of the rice cookers. It is not a definite proposal, made with the intention that it becomes binding once accepted (see Partridge v Crittenden ). As the fax sent on the 1st September, 2000 by Italian Cuisine is not an offer we in a flash need to consider the locate with the Tallula fax at 1st October, 2000.This reply is not an acceptance. An acceptance is an agreement to be bound to the terms of an offer. The fax by Tallula is actually an offer to buy the cookers at $100 (see Harvey v Facey ).Italian Cuisines response to the Tallula Investments fax receiving attention is not an acceptance to the offer. An acceptance must be clear and unqualified to be binding. It can be argued that Italian Cuisine is actually silent on the issue of acceptance an silence is not acceptance (see Felthouse v Bindley ). We must now look at the issue of the revocation and decide whether Tallula Investments is required to take delivery and pay for the cookers. Since Tallula made the offer to Italian Cuisine which was not actually accepted, they are entitled to revoke that offer. An offer can be revoked by an offeror before communication of acceptance by the offeree (see Goldsborough Mort & Co v Quinn). Tallula Investments therefore, do not have to take delivery or pay for the rice cookers as they are not bound by the contract of law.