Case Study On Law: Atkinson v. Affronti

[Date of Submission]Case Study On Law: Atkinson v. Affronti

PART I: BRIEF

Atkinson was extremely upset by the telephone call from Affronti cancelling the order of wild boar piglets. Atkinson believes that Affronti had made a legally binding contract with her that he could not break. Affronti has argued that he was within his rights to make an agreement with whoever he pleased and owes nothing to Atkinson. The English law of contract is clear on the fact that any agreement that is enforceable in a court of law is considered a contract. Offer and acceptance are some of the most important features of a contract. In this case, one party makes an offer for a certain arrangement, and the other party accepts the terms of the arrangement. Neither offer nor acceptance has to be made through writing or through making oral statements. This type of contract is referred to as an implied contract in which certain terms are not expressed or explained in words. This seems to be the kind of agreement that Affronti had with Atkinson. Once he ordered for his piglets, Atkinson expected him to accept and pay for the services rendered.

In order to know your rights under sale of goods and/or service agreements, it is important firstly to understand the basic principles of contract law. Contract law is all about enforcing promises and making them legally binding irrespective of whether there is something in writing to this effect. Despite the word 'contract', and contrary to popular belief, a written contract is not required in order for these obligations to exist in law. A contract may also be formed verbally or by implication, simply by one party making an offer and the other party accepting that offer - even purchasing an item in a shop, or getting into a taxi are examples of this. Of course it must be proved that both offer and acceptance were clearly communicated and understood, that both parties were legally capable of making those promises, and there was something being offered in exchange for the promise (usually money). And while 'putting it in writing' is not necessary for a legally binding contract to exist, as the next section will show us, it may be hard to prove what was otherwise agreed.

Atkinson has every right to demand for compensation from Affronti, who had made it clear in his communication that he would get the piglets for Affronti. Before Affronti met his second supplier, he had intended to honour his agreement with Atkinson because it was a business agreement. However, just because he found a cheap alternative, he disregarded his earlier agreement with Atkinson. It could be reasoned that his action was justified since by the time he agreed to buy the piglets from the second supplier, he had not received any communication from Atkinson about her new terms. However this argument is not admissible in a court of law since Atkinson had not in fact failed to communicate, ...