Mary, a keen pottery collector, saw a notice for an auction at James Pottery Lim
ID: 423748 • Letter: M
Question
Mary, a keen pottery collector, saw a notice for an auction at James Pottery Limited on September 30th 2017 in the Daily News. She traveled 300 kilometers, to attend the auction in order to bid for a particularly rare item of Mozart pottery, specifically mentioned in the list of items to be auctioned. However, when she got to the auction site, she found a notice outside stating that the auction had been cancelled. Mary thereafter proceeded to a nearby antique shop and saw an item of the same type of pottery she had come to bid for, which the price ticket stated as $5000. Mary indicated to the shop owner, Anthony, that she was only willing to pay $4,000 for it. However, Anthony said he would sell it for $4,500. Mary then indicated to him that she desires some time to think about it over lunch; Anthony subsequently, agreed not to sell the identified pottery before Mary returned. However, when Mary returned to purchase the pottery, she found that Anthony had already sold it to someone else, who had paid $4,500 for it.
In the context of contract law, advise Mary whether she can take action against Anthony, for not selling the pottery to her.
Explanation / Answer
Ans: In order to understand the context of case, lets understand few terms related to contract law and its implecability.
(a) Express Terms:- Terms that have been mentioned and agreed by both parties at the time the contract is made. They can either be oral or in writing.
(b) Implied Terms:- These are words or provisions that a court assumes were intended to be included in a contract.
(c) Incorporation by reference:- The act of including a second document within another document by only mentioning the second document. This act makes the entire second document a part of the main document if done properly.
(d) Act of negligence:- It is a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. In this context Anthony failed to keep the words of not selling the pottery, hence it was act of negligence.
(e) Express authority:- It is the authority which the principal has given to the agent whether orally or in writing. But in this context Mary didnt gave any authority to sell the pottery before she returns.
(f) Implied authority:- It is the authority of an agent to do acts which are reasonably incidental to and necessary for the effective performance of his duties. Here Anthony as was not in any contract he can sell his pottery at the price which he desires.
(g) Contract:- It is a promise or set of promises that are legally enforceable. In this context with Mary, there was a promise made between Marry and Anthony not to sell the identified pottery before Mary returned. But this promise was not legally enforceable.
So Mary cannot take any action against Anthony, as this was a negligence of promise which was not legally enforceable.