Legistify

Cross offer Meaning: .  Where two parties make identical offers to each other, in ignorance of each other‟s offer, the offers are known as cross-offers. Cross offer never initiate the process of contract because it does not fulfill the requirements of valid offer. There are essentials of cross offer which are as follows: Same offer to one another: When offeror makes an offer to offeree and offeree without knowing the offer which was prior made by offeror to him, makes the same offer to offeror means the object as well as party both remains same. So both party can never make the offer on the same object to each other because if it happens then who will accept the offer and if there is no acceptance of offer then no contract can be made. Offer must be in ignorance of the offer made by another: The terms and Condition: the terms or the object must be same when it is made by the other person to the first person then only it will be considered as cross offer because if the second offer differs from first offer then it can be considered as counter offer. Illustration: Sai makes an offer to Chandu to sell him a pen@ 200 and on the same time without knowing the offer the chandu makes the offer on same object to sai. So here the parties are same, the object or the thing is also same and it was made by the chandu to sai without knowledge. Therefore it will be a cross offer because it fulfills the requirement.          Tinn v Hoffman & Co. [1873] 29 LT 271 Facts of the case -Two identical cross-offers made in ignorance of the other do not amount to a contract, unless/until one is accepted. H wrote to T offering to sell him 800 tons of iron at 69s per ton. On the same day T wrote to H offering to buy on the same terms. Issue – whether there is valid contract or not. Held – No contract existed. The simultaneous cross-offers made in ignorance of each other, would not bind the parties Blackburn J stated: “. . . The promise or offer made on each side in ignorance of the promise or offer made on the other side, neither of them can be construed as an acceptance of the other.” Read More

Posted at 05:44 AM, 31 Jan 17 | 1 Answer

Legistify

Offer Meaning: As per sec. 2(a) of the Act states that when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other person either to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. To reach at the stage of contract, the offer is needed and when the offer is accepted by the other party then it is called acceptance. Illustration: A wants to sell own car @ 50 Lakh, he makes a written statement stating own willingness and sends to B, the same thing will be considered as offer for B. Cross Offer Meaning: Where two parties make identical offers to each other, in ignorance of each other‟s offer, the offers are known as cross-offers. Cross offer never initiate the process of contract because it does not fulfill the requirements of valid offer. There are essentials of cross offer which are as follows: Same offer to one another: When offeror makes an offer to offeree and offeree without knowing the offer which was prior made by offeror to him, makes the same offer to offeror means the object as well as party both remains same. So both party can never make the offer on the same object to each other because if it happens then who will accept the offer and if there is no acceptance of offer then no contract can be made. Offer must be in ignorance of the offer made by another: The terms and Condition: the terms or the object must be same when it is made by the other person to the first person then only it will be considered as cross offer because if the second offer differs from first offer then it can be considered as counter offer. Illustration: Sai makes an offer to Chandu to sell him a pen@ 200 and on the same time without knowing the offer the chandu makes the offer on same object to sai. So here the parties are same, the object or the thing is also same and it was made by the chandu to sai without knowledge. Therefore it will be a cross offer because it fulfills the requirement.                 Similarities between Cross offer and Counter offer Cross offer and counter offer both terminates the original offer i.e. in case of cross offer any party can terminate and in case of counter offer only offeree terminate the original offer. Cross offer and counter offer in both cases when second time offer is made to first party the second one becomes invitation to offer. In both cases the response will not be considered as acceptance of offer. In Both cases the response will not be considered as binding contract. Read More

Posted at 05:42 AM, 31 Jan 17 | 1 Answer

Legistify

Cross Offer Meaning: Where two parties make identical offers to each other, in ignorance of each other‟s offer, the offers are known as cross-offers. Cross offer never initiate the process of contract because it does not fulfill the requirements of valid offer. There are essentials of cross offer which are as follows: Same offer to one another: When offeror makes an offer to offeree and offeree without knowing the offer which was prior made by offeror to him, makes the same offer to offeror means the object as well as party both remains same. So both party can never make the offer on the same object to each other because if it happens then who will accept the offer and if there is no acceptance of offer then no contract can be made. Offer must be in ignorance of the offer made by another: The terms and Condition: the terms or the object must be same when it is made by the other person to the first person then only it will be considered as cross offer because if the second offer differs from first offer then it can be considered as counter offer. Illustration: Sai makes an offer to Chandu to sell him a pen@ 200 and on the same time without knowing the offer the chandu makes the offer on same object to sai. So here the parties are same, the object or the thing is also same and it was made by the chandu to sai without knowledge. Therefore it will be a cross offer because it fulfills the requirement. Tinn v Hoffman & Co. [1873] 29 LT 271 Facts of the case -Two identical cross-offers made in ignorance of the other do not amount to a contract, unless/until one is accepted. H wrote to T offering to sell him 800 tons of iron at 69s per ton. On the same day T wrote to H offering to buy on the same terms. Issue – whether there is valid contract or not. No contract existed. The simultaneous cross-offers made in ignorance of each other, would not bind the parties Blackburn J stated: “. . . The promise or offer made on each side in ignorance of the promise or offer made on the other side, neither of them can be construed as an acceptance of the other.” Difference between Cross offer and Counter offer Basis Counter offer It is made at the same time. Party It is only made by the offeree. This offer is made due to norance. Illustration A makes offer to B regarding sell of car @40 thousand and B in response agree to buy it @25 thousand.   Read More

Posted at 05:38 AM, 31 Jan 17 | 1 Answer

Legistify

Cross offers:  These are the offers that party make to each other in ignorance of each others offer. Cross offers are identical. In the case of cross offers, no binding contract will be created and the offer could not be said to have been accepted by any of the party. Ex:  A writes a letter to B offering him his bike for Rs 100. At the same time B writes a letter to making a similar offer to buy his bike for Rs 100. Offers of both A and B cross each other. Such offers do not constitute to acceptance of one's offer by the other. Counter Offer: On the other hand, in counter offer there is a rejection of the original offer and a new offer is made that needs acceptance by the original promisor before a contract can be made. Ex:  X offers Y his bike for Rs 100. Y rejects the offer and offers A to buy his bike for Rs 80. Such an offer is known as the counter offer.Read More

Posted at 05:30 AM, 31 Jan 17 | 1 Answer

Legistify

The Director can be made responsible if the decisions taken are against the interests of the Company, or for debt evasion. To edify more we have a case law where, a start-up company was set up in late 2002. By August 2005 the original, substantial, external investment in the company had been used up, it had lost a major customer and its revenue was insufficient to reduce the overall losses it had built up. It was wound up as insolvent by a creditor in 2007. Later, the liquidator alleged wrongful trading because for example: • There was no evidence that the directors had considered the company’s worsening financial situation and its potential effect on creditors. They ought to have done so and ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation. •The directors had not economised ― they had continued to spend money as they had previously, including paying themselves salaries and expenses. They had not taken ‘every step’ with a view to minimising the loss to creditors.The court decided they were guilty of wrongful trading from June 2005.Moreover, if you have evaded any debts and avoided any creditor’s warning then according to the newly enacted Bankruptcy and the Insolvency Code, 2016 the creditors can proceed against you legally as that of “sick company”, and the law involves quick disposal of cases within 180 days. Read More

Posted at 02:56 AM, 01 Oct 16 | 1 Answer

Legistify

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract states that only those persons who are parties to the contract can enforce a contract The stranger to a contract cannot enforce a contract.   Read More

Posted at 12:45 AM, 25 Sep 16 | 1 Answer

Legistify

No, such agreement is considered to be void as per Section 28 of Indian Contract Act. When both the parties are Indian, the substantive law governing the dispute must necessarily be Indian irrespective of the seats of the arbitration and irrespective of any provision in the contract between the parties to the contrary.   Read More

Posted at 01:06 AM, 22 Sep 16 | 1 Answer

Legistify

Mistakes in a contract setting can either be unilateral or mutual. A unilateral mistake is where only one party is mistaken as to one of the terms in the contract. Generally speaking, a unilateral mistake does not make the contract void, so long as the other party did not take advantage of the mistake, and the mistake was not a result of some sort of misrepresentation or fraud. On the other hand, a mutual mistake is where both parties are mistaken regarding a key factual matter in the contract. Unlike a unilateral mistake, the existence of a mutual mistake will usually make the contract void.   Read More

Posted at 11:29 PM, 21 Jul 16 | 1 Answer

Legistify

Usually, a person needs to be of legal age in order to enter into a contract.  In most states this is at least 18 years of age. This is referred to as the legal capacity to enter into a contract. In addition to having legal capacity, a person also needs to have “competency” to form a contract.  This is defined as: the ability to understand that a contract is being formed, and the ability to understand the general nature of the contract. So, even if a person has the legal capacity (age) to enter into a contract, a court might not enforce it if the person lacked the legal or mental capacity to do so. Read More

Posted at 11:28 PM, 21 Jul 16 | 1 Answer

Legistify

In order for a contract to be valid, certain elements of proof must be met. These include: the existence of an agreement between the two parties; the parties are competent to form a contract; the parties agree to the arrangement; the agreement is supported by consideration; the agreement is not lawful; and the agreement follows the form required by contract laws. If any of these elements is missing, the contract might not be enforceable in a court of law. Read More

Posted at 11:26 PM, 21 Jul 16 | 1 Answer