Business Law

[Senil]

John has started importing Nike shoes from the US. On 12th January John sends a fax to David in Stafford and a fax to Kathy in London. The faxes are identical except for the names and the addresses. John asks each of them if they would be interested in becoming the sole distributor for Nike shoes throughout United Kingdom for a commission of 20 per cent. Kathy replies by fax on 17th January stating that she accepts all the terms in John’s fax but will take on the distributorship if the commission is 40 per cent. John then sends a fax to David, on the 17th, stating I offer you the sole distributorship of “Nike” at a basic rate of 35 per cent commission. I must hear from you by 23rd January as I want to ship the first supplies of Nike shoes to you on 
30th January. David receives the fax and sends John a letter in the mail accepting the offer. The letter did not arrive until 24th January. On 22nd January Kathy, having heard nothing from John since the fax of 12th January, posted a letter to John offering to act as sole agent for distribution of Nike for a 20 per cent commission. John received Kathy’s letter on 23rd January. John immediately telephones David and tells him that the post of sole distributor is no longer available. David insists that there is a binding contract to appoint him.






1.Does John have a binding contract with David? 


2.What is John’s legal position in relation to Kathy?

3.Can John accept Kathy’s offer?

[jackthehat]

Remember;
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration.
Apply these and see where you end up....

[Peter Pedant]

O god read the chapter and course notes ( and your other students) on offer and acceptance

your course will have a view to off and invitation to treat
and you have to discuss the two and the relation
( working in a fact or two and of course the cases involved)

postiing is from the time it is posted as it cannot be called back ( in England) unless it is a private post box
1973 - we had - - - and the ink had run out of the printer, had the the fax arrived? ( two appeal court judges and one attorney general obviously not THEN ) for firsts in that one