- This topic has 8 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
“Which of the following statements as regards an acceptance of an offer ‘subject to contract’ is true?
A. It binds the offeror
B. It binds neither party
C. It binds both partiesQ> I feel like this is a sentence error, what is this question asking? Please help. Thank you
I can see no problem with the wording of the sentence!
The question asks (in other words) which (if either) party is bound by an acceptance that is expressed to be ‘subject to contract’
Does that make it any clearer for you?
Sort of – the answer is B
-Why is an acceptance subject to contract bind neither party? I know that an acceptance must be unconditional and must not add any new terms or conditions and just state that I accept it as it is in order to be vaid.
I mean how could there be a contract to be subject to other than the one they are going to form by accepting the offer?
Kind regards,
kingkongsajangWhen, in England, a house is being sold, it is not unusual to see the estate agent’s sign go up “Sold – subject to contract”
The situation is that an offer has been made and quasi-accepted. That acceptance will only be fully effective after the buyer has had all the necessary searches completed and all the paperwork prepared and checked.
Until that time that that paperwork is presented to the buyer and the seller – one copy for each for them to sign – that the paperwork is then passed to the other party for their respective signatures
That process is referred to as “Exchange of contracts’
Until that time, either party is able to back out of the nearly-completed arrangement
It’s worth noting that the law relating to property sales in Scotland is rather different and that, once an offer has been made and accepted, there’s no going back
And that is one reason why the ACCA Law paper for England is referred to as English Law and not as United Kingdom Law
But technically, you’re correct in that the definition of a contract is an agreement made with intention to be legally binding and supported by consideration
So immediately it is not technically possible to have a “subject to contract contract”
Similarly, it’s an oxymoron to have a void contract – how can you have a void legal agreement?
OK?
I didn’t get the last oxymoron bit, but the top bit was intuitive, especially the explanation of why the paper is called English Law, and not United Kingdom Law.
Thank you.
An oxymoron is a contradiction in itself
Some people may claim that the expression “an intelligent footballer” is a contradiction in terms and would thus hold it as an example of an oxymoron
OK?
@mikelittle said:
I can see no problem with the wording of the sentence!The question asks (in other words) which (if either) party is bound by an acceptance that is expressed to be ‘subject to contract’
Does that make it any clearer for you?
@kingkongsajang said:
“Which of the following statements as regards an acceptance of an offer ‘subject to contract’ is true?A. It binds the offeror
B. It binds neither party
C. It binds both partiesQ> I feel like this is a sentence error, what is this question asking? Please help. Thank you
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.