This writing is presented to discuss, argue and justify the dealings of Peter Piper with Paris Sheraton, Britney Arrow, Microwave Madness Ltd and the fire fighters as presented in the question.
I will start by discussing the Paris Sheraton case. The display of the bright pink vacuum cleaner as it applies to this case is an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat legally is an incitement to make an offer; the offer made is subject to acceptance or rejection by the party making the invitation. An invitation to treat is not an offer, cannot be treated as one and therefore cannot be accepted as a binding contract in this case. Furthermore to support my argument I would like to introduce the Sale of Goods Act (1979) section 12 (1), which implies that the seller must own the property he is selling therefore Mr Peter Piper does not reserve the right to sell the item to Paris Sheraton because the bright pink vacuum cleaner is on loan to Peter Piper from the manufacturer.
It’s important as well as beneficial that both parties clearly understand the concepts and differences between an invitation to treat, an offer, and a binding contract. As with the case of Peter Piper, the display of an item in a shop window does not in any way constitute an offer or a binding contract between the seller (Peter Piper) and the would be buyer (Paris Sheraton). What is evident in this case is the buyer holds the impression that as long as she’s willing and able to purchase an item, regardless of any situation the seller does not reserve the right to refuse her such privilege. A contract consists of offer, consideration and acceptance from both parties therefore Paris Sheraton does not reserve the right to take legal action against Peter Piper because Peter did not offer to sell the vacuum to Paris. Even though Peter didn’t make an offer, Paris was welcome to do so but its subject to Peter’s acceptance or rejection. In this case however Peter is not in the position to do either.
Secondly I will discuss the Britney Arrow case. In order for a contract to be legally binding, it must at least consist of an offer, consideration of the offer and acceptance of the offer and communication of the agreement between the two parties. With an agreement communication and receipted between parties can be taken as a legal binding contract. In this case Britney Arrows was unable to communicate her acceptance of the offer to Peter Piper which means there was no agreement. There is no specified time period for Britney to accept the offer and an offer will not remain open indefinitely therefore Peter Piper deemed two weeks reasonable time period to terminate the offer. In reference to Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) the offer would terminate after a relatively short time if it was made by speedy means such as face to face or email. In this case, Peter advised Britney to correspond via email her decision and this would be expected in a relatively short time since the communication is via a speedy means. Due to unforeseen circumstances Peter was unable to access the email sent to him hence an acceptance was not formed. In contract law, instantaneous method of communication of acceptance is legally binding when it is received and acknowledged by the offeror not when it is sent by the offeree. So in this case the acceptance from Britney Arrows must be communicated and receipted to the offeror (Peter Piper) otherwise he will not acknowledge the formation of a contract.
According to Peter Piper two weeks is a reasonable time for Britney arrows to have made a decision on accepting or rejecting his offer. Terminating the offer in two weeks is considered a reasonable expiration period of the offer and therefore Britney Arrows has no legal basis to argue her case.
In this section I will discuss the sale of goods between Microwave Madness Ltd, Peter Piper and the events that follows. In the contract