Starting Point of This Analysis

¶ … starting point of this analysis is a determination as to whether or not the advertisement in the "Trading Post" by the seller of the cabinet constituted a legitimate and enforceable offer. As the beginning point of any contractual relationship is the offer, the integrity of the negotiating process between Steven (the potential purchaser) and Susan (the seller) is paramount to any further discussion.

It has been black letter law in the Australian legal system that advertisements contained in publications available to the general public such as the "Trading Post" can be considered as valid offers and, unless clearly withdrawn, subject to acceptance (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., 1893).

As the facts of the case indicate clearly that Steven conveyed his acceptance of the terms of the advertisement, Steven has a strong argument that he has an enforceable legal contract with Susan for the purchase of the cabinet for the advertised price of $8,000 (Empirnall Holdings Pty. Ltd. v. Machon Paull Partners Pty. Ltd., 1988). The fact that Susan responded to Steven's initial acceptance by now offering the cabinet for sale for one week at the new price of $10,000 is clear evidence that she received Steven's acceptance at the $8,000 offering price.

Arguably, the case should have been terminated at this point and the transaction closed, however, Steven's failure to enforce the original terms and to proceed to again agree to accept Susan's new offer to sell at $10,000 complicates the matter further and, from the standpoint of Steven, needlessly. Steven's failure to enforce the original terms of a valid contract and to subsequently enter into extended negotiations with Susan on the new terms may be construed as a withdrawal of his original intent to be bound by the $8,000 agreement.

Such position is tenuous but necessary in light of the fact that Steven is ultimately denied the right to purchase the cabinet because of the subsequent actions of Susan. The facts in the case do not clearly indicate on what date Steven conveyed his new acceptance to Susan and this omission may affect the validity of Steven acceptance on the second offer. Susan's new offer was open for one week from June 1st.

Under the postal rule, Steven would have been provided one week from June 1st to convey his acceptance and because his letter of acceptance was not received until June 11th it would be incumbent on Steven to prove that his acceptance was posted by June 8th (Holwell Securities Ltd. v. Hughes, 1974). Under the postal rule, the date of posting would control and, assuming that Steven can provide proof that his posting was on or before June 8th he would again have an enforceable contract with Susan.

Regardless of Steven's ability to prove the date of posting, Susan's June 5th agreement with Stephanie should be deemed unenforceable at least as it pertains to Steven's legal rights. Susan's actions run contrary to her original intent to keep the offer open for one week beginning on June 1st and her not only reaching an agreement, but also effecting delivery within the one week period should be ruled invalid.

Under contract law, Susan had an obligation to convey her revocation of her offer to Steven and to do so in a form similar to how she conveyed her original offer. Her failure to do so keeps her original offer open as to Steven until the stated expiration date of June 8th and Steven has the right to enforce such terms (Byrne. Van Tienhoven, 1880). The facts of this case and the subsequent legal analysis indicate that Steven.