John Had Just Started A Business Selling Smartphone Accessor

John had just started a business selling smartphone accessories he h

John had just started a business selling smartphone accessories. He had his stall set up in the city where his stall displayed all his goods for sale. One Friday, Jill, upon visiting John’s stall, found a portable charger she needed for her smartphone and asked for the price, to which John responded that it cost $20. She then replied that she did not have the cash with her at that moment but would come by on Tuesday to pick it up. John responded that he would be there every day next week. On Tuesday, Jill approached John again and said, “This is $20 for the portable charger.” However, John told her that the price had increased to $30 over the weekend and that he would not sell it to her at the previous price of $20.

Paper For Above instruction

In the scenario presented, Jill seeks to understand whether she has a legal right to force John to sell the portable charger at the initially agreed price of $20, despite his subsequent increase in price. This situation involves principles of contract law, specifically the concepts of offers, acceptance, and the enforceability of contractual agreements, even in commercial transactions such as sales by sellers in public places.

At the outset, John’s statement that the portable charger was priced at $20 constituted an invitation to treat rather than a binding contract. An invitation to treat is an expression of willingness to negotiate or display goods for sale, which does not itself constitute a legally binding offer. According to common law principles, when a seller displays goods with a price tag, it is generally considered an invitation to treat. The customer, upon agreeing and presenting payment, makes an offer to buy, which the seller can accept or reject.

In this context, Jill's initial visit and inquiry about the price, combined with her statement that she would return with payment, constituted an offer to purchase at the listed price. John's response that he would be available every day next week was merely an assurance that he would be present to complete any transactions but did not constitute acceptance of any specific offer. Therefore, no binding contract was formed at the point she indicated her intent to purchase; instead, her offer remained pending until acceptance by John.

When Jill returned on Tuesday and offered $20, she made an offer to buy the portable charger at that price. John’s subsequent statement that the price had increased to $30 was a rejection of her offer at $20 and an attempt to establish a new price. Under contract law, a rejection of an offer terminates the original offer, preventing the initial terms from being enforceable. If John intended to change the price, he must have explicitly communicated this as a counter-offer or amended the terms visibly, such as updating signage or informing potential customers that prices have increased. Absent such explicit communication, the initial advertisement remains an invitation to treat, and the customer’s offer remains open for acceptance until the seller explicitly rejects or alters the terms.

Consequently, Jill could argue that a binding agreement existed at the $20 price when she made her offer on Tuesday, especially considering her prior communication and her readiness to purchase at that price. Given that John’s change in price was communicated only after her offer, and there was no formal rejection or notice of a new price before her offer, she may have grounds to claim that there was a binding contractual obligation to sell at the original price.

However, enforcement also depends on jurisdictional nuances and whether the authority of the seller to alter prices is limited by implied terms. In many jurisdictions, the seller can set prices and change them until a sale is finalized, but once the seller accepts a buyer’s offer, an enforceable contract is generally formed. In this case, because the initial offer by Jill remained open and John did not explicitly reject or modify it before acceptance, she could argue that a contract was formed at the $20 price. If the case were to proceed legally, Jill would need to demonstrate that her offer was still valid and that John’s subsequent price increase was wrongful or a breach of the initial agreement.

In conclusion, Jill might have a valid claim that she is entitled to purchase the portable charger at $20, especially if she can demonstrate that her offer remained open and that John’s attempt to raise the price was a breach of prior contractual obligations. Nonetheless, the specifics depend heavily on the facts of the communication and the applicable law in the jurisdiction. It would be advisable for Jill to seek legal counsel to assess whether her position has sufficient merit to pursue enforcement of the original price.

References

• Farnsworth, E. A. (2019). Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
• Chen-Wishart, M. (2018). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Treitel, G. H. (2015). The Law of Contract. Sweet & Maxwell.
• McKendrick, E. (2017). Contract Law. Palgrave.
• Poole, J. (2018). Textbook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Cheshire, G., & Fifoot, C. H. S. (2016). Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
• Gavin, R. A. (2020). Civil Litigation. Routledge.
• Smith, J. (2021). Consumer Law and Protection. Cambridge University Press.
• Secunda, P. M. (2014). Contract Law. Wolters Kluwer.
• Riley, R. (2019). Commercial and Consumer Law. Routledge.