Legal Analysis Of Wanda's Case: Can She Sue Her Parents, The Seller Or The Manager?

demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Whether Wanda can sue her parents for the enforcement of the promise to buy new clothes in exchange of high distinction in unit exams?

To establish a contract there are few contractual elements that must be made part of the contract which includes an agreement (offer and acceptance), consideration, legal capacity and legal intention. The combination of all the elements results in a valid legal enforceable contract amid the parties. (Burrows, 2018)

Every contract is initiated with the help of an offer which is accepted by an offeree resulting in agreement and is held in (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892). It is necessary that when the promises are made then the same must be made with legal intention. (Carter, 2013)

Legal intention is one of the elements of contract. The parties to contract must have legal intention as held in (Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd, 1989). Generally the parties who are in family relationship does not hold legal intention as held in (Balfour v Balfour, 1919) wherein the court held that a husband and his wife are in family relationship and thus there is no legal intention that exist amid the parties. likewise, in (Jones v Padavatton, 1969), it was held that the mother and the daughter are in domestic relationship and thus there is no presence of legal intention amid the parties.

Also, as per (Rose and Frank & Co v Crompton, 1923) the parties who are in commercial relationship holds legal intention amid themselves making the promises amid them enforceable in law.

But, this presumption is not static and as held in (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc, 2002), the parties who are in family relationship hold legal intention if the same can be proved. Likewise, the parties who are in commercial relationship does not hold legal intention if proved otherwise.  

Also, a contract with minor is generally not enforceable and is void. But, if the contract is made with the minor for necessity or for employment then the same is enforceable by minor and is held in (Nash v Inman, 1908). It is the minor who has the power to enforce the contract and enforce the same in his favor on attaining majority.

As per the facts, Mrs Wanda Rerr is not a major and is only 17 years old.  She is completing her business and marketing course in the local college.  Her parents are concern that she had not studied hard for the unit. Her parents promised her that if she will get a High distinction in her unit then they will buy her clothes of $3000.

It is submitted that both Wanda and her parents are in the relationship of family and are domestically united. Thus, as per (Balfour v Balfour, 1919)there cannot be any kind of contractual relationship amid the two. It is presumed that there is absence of legal intention amid them and thus there is no contractual relationship amid them.

But, if the parties who are in family relationship exchange promises with the legal intention to abide by the same, then, such promises are enforceable in law as held in (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc, 2002)

Law

As stated, that based on the said promise, Wanda studied very hard and get high distinction in her exams. Now, the parents cannot refuse to buy her new clothes. This is because the hard study of Wanda is based on the promise made by her parents. Thus, the parties are willing to abide by the promises that are exchanged amid them even though they are sharing family relationship.

Also, the contact that is made by the parents of Wanda is when she is a minor and the same is made for her necessity. Thus, as per (Nash v Inman, 1908)Wanda has the right to sue her parents and enforce the promises that are exchanged amid them.

Conclusion

Thus, Wanda can sue her parents for the enforcement of contract and persuade them to buy her new clothes worth $ 3000. Since she a minor and the contract is made for her necessity, thus, the contract is valid. 

Whether Wanda can sue the seller for breach of contract?

Any contract can come into existence when there is a valid offer made by the offeror which must be accepted by the offeree. An offer is the communication of the intention of the offeror either verbally or textually to the offeree. The offeree when affirms the terms that is communicated to him without any variation then it is an acceptance in law and is held in (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892). Both offer and acceptance results in the formation of an agreement.

An invitation is different from an acceptance wherein the person making the invitation invites offer from the respective person which when affirms by the inviter (offeree) results in binding agreement amid the parties. An advertisement, display of goods at the shelf is not offers but are invitation to treat and is held in (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, 1953). 

The facts reveal that Ms Wanda decides to go for shopping. She browsed through a fashion shop named ‘Her Buttons and Bows’ and spotted a ‘Bomme shell’ dress for a price ‘dollar 200 or less’.

Now, it is submitted that any article that is displayed at the shelf of the shop is not an offer rather it is treated as a invitation to treat. Thus, the display of the dress that Wanda decided to buy is nothing but an invitation to treat.

Thus, the option that is available to Wanda is that she must make an offer to the shop and when the same is accepted by the shop then it results in making a contractual relationship amid the two.

It is now submitted that when Wanda reached the counter she was told that the dress was accidently placed at the counter of @200 or less and that the actual cost of the dress is $800. It is thus submitted that now at this stage there is only display of dress by the shop any if Wanda is inserted she then must make an offer to buy the dress. If the shop accepts the offer of Wanda then there is a contract amid the two.

Application

So, there is no offer that is made by Wanda initially to the invitation of the shop. Thus, Wanda cannot sue the shop for breach of contract.

Conclusion

The display of dress by the shop is only an invitation to treat. Wanda has not made any offer against the invitation of the shop, thus, there is no contractual relationship amid the two and thus Wanda cannot sue the shop for breach of contract. 

What area the rights that can be avail by Wanda for the acts incurred by the manager?

When two parties comply with the contractual elements then the parties to the contract must abide by the terns of the contract. However, when the contract is based on misrepresentation then the aggrieved party has the right to terminate the contract and sue the defaulting party for damages. A misrepresentation is incurred when a false statement of fact is made by the representor to the relying fact with an intention to make the relying party believe the statements so that a contractual relationship is made amid the parties and is held in (Google Inc v ACCC, 2013).

Any contract which is based on misrepresentation can be rescinded by the aggrieved party and has the power to sue the defaulting party for damages.

As per the fact, it is submitted that Wanda purchased the dress from the manager based on certain representations that are made by him. It was submitted by the manager that he is not able to sell the dress from below the price of $600 as the dress was made from the best fabric and anything below the said price will not result in seeking significant profit. Based on the representations that are made by the manager, Wanda buys the dress.

However, the representations that were made by the manager are found to be false. When she visited one of the restaurants and sat, part of the dress tore and the stitching fell apart. It was also later discovered that the dress was not a Bonne shell dress, it was not made in London and was not of good quality. It was just an imitation of Bonn shell.

Now, the representations that were made by the manager are false statements of fact that are made by the manager intentionally to deceive Wanda so that she buys the dress. Thus, the statements by manager are nothing but the act of misrepresentation.

Thus, Wanda has every right to sue the manner for misrepresentation, cancel the contract and seek damages.

Conclusion 

The dress that is bought by Wanda is based on misrepresentation made by the manager and thus Wanda can rescind the contract and sue for damages. 

Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1989).

Balfour v Balfour (1919).

Burrows, A. (2018). A Casebook on Contract. Australia: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892).

Carter, J. (2013). The Construction of Commercial Contracts. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002).

Google Inc v ACCC (2013).

Jones v Padavatton (1969).

Nash v Inman (1908).

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1953).

Rose and Frank & Co v Crompton (1923).