The drafting of the valid agreement between the parties of the contractual relations is the key pillar for the maintenance of the credible business relations with the occurrence of the relevant rights and responsibilities between the participants of the contract. Based on the validity of the agreement, it is possible to prove the attitude of one party to the another one, interpret the scope of the rights and several other moments in terms of the contract law. With that, the validity of the agreement is grounded on some points based on which the findings regarding its force may be achieved. The formation of the valid and binding contract between the parties is highly important for the parties that are interested in the further enforcement of the agreement by the relevant authorities as the court. In this regard, there is range of the requirements that should be met by the parties before the entrance into the agreement where the rights and obligations should be prescribed in the manner that it will be enforceable. These requirements are titled as the elements of the valid agreement and should be respected by the parties accordingly (Coloma, 2008). The elements that should be taken into account during the examination of the validity of the contract are the following:
An intention to enter contractual relations with the other party in order to form certain legal relationship governed by the current legislative base of the particular jurisdiction;
Existence of the offer between the parties;
Availability of the acceptance;
Consideration of the terms;
Legal capacity to enter the contract;
Legality of the arrangement (Oldham and Atiyah, 1982).
These points are regarded as the most important for the consideration of the nature of the agreement between the parties from the perspective of the current legislation of the Untied kingdom and general practice of the business law. However, the different jurisdictions may incorporate certain requirements in the local legislation as to the form of the agreement, it supplementary elements in order to prove its validity. Coming back to the merits of the case, the situation should be considered from the perspective of the crucial elements that falls within the scope of the valid agreement. Both Harley and dealer had the intention to enter the sale and purchase agreement for the realization of the vehicle as 2013 Jeep for 25,000 pounds. Moreover, the parties have agreed about the timeframe with each other during which the purchase of the automobile should be made. In this regard, Harley informed the dealer about his intention to take additional sum of money from the bank in form of the loan so that to finalize this agreement. With that, it is clear that the dealer should wait for the response of Harley to the mentioned date rather than to attempt to sell the car to the another buyer. In addition, there is a clear offer that was made between the parties. The offer comprises in the fact that the dealer has established the price for the car of 25,000 pounds. The parties have discussed it accordingly and agreed about the other conditions pertaining to the purchase of the car as the object of the sale and purchase agreement. Besides, Harley as the primary buyer to the agreement has stated evidently that he is ready to buy the car while the additional actions in form of the conduction of the meeting with the manager of the bank on the loan should be provided. The dealer was familiar with these circumstances and agreed to wait. By virtue of these actions the parties have confirmed the availability of the offer and acceptance jointly with the fact that the intention to enter legal relationship was expressed (Totyev, n.d.).
The offer and acceptance can not be confirmed with the written form as these relationship was initiated in form of the negotiations about the price. At the same time, the business law is familiar with the oral agreement between the parties that should be considered as valid form of contractual relations between the parties. Simultaneously, the lawful consideration took place where the consideration was regarded in form of the price for which the promise of the another person of the contractual relations was expressed to the first participant of the contract. Meanwhile, the legal consideration implies that the parties have mutual flow of the objects during the accomplishment of the requirements pertaining to the offer and acceptance. Therefore, one party as dealer stated that he will give to Harley the car for the issue of the financial sum for the purchase of the car. Given the fact that the party has negotiated the crucial terms of the contractual relations it is possible to state that this agreement should have been finalized in legal manner upon the receipt of the payment form Harley.
The other crucial requirement of the valid agreement is the capacity of the parties that are involved in the formation of the agreement. The capacity of the parties implies that any of them should be competent enough to enter the contract. In case any of the parties to the agreement do not have legal standing to sign the contract and enter contractual relations, this arrangement will not be considered as valid one. However, there are no merits in the fibula that may render the opinion that dealer or Harley may be found as incompetent persons. According to the practice of the business law, such persons as miners, persons that are disqualified by the law are treated as incompetent to the signature of the contract. Given the fact that there are no evidences about the absence of the competence and legal capacity on behalf of any party to the current deal, it is possible to conclude that this requirement of the contract may be considered as fulfilled (Mead, Sagar and Bampton, 2008).
The next pivotal element of the valid agreement is referred to the free consent made by the parties during the expression of the decision regarding the entrance into the contractual arrangements. The principles of the business law stipulate that the consent means the parties have agreed evidently to the same thing mentioned during the primary stages of the negotiations. The free consent occurs when it is not limited by the actions falling within the scope of the coercion, mis-representation, mistake, fraud. Therefore, the agreement should be conducted under the free consent of the parties. The merits of the case show that there are no such restrictions that may undermine the free consent of the parties to enter into the contractual relations. Therefore, it is possible to deliver the opinion that the parties have freedom of mind in the adoption of the decisions and were not restricted during this stage as well as no external circumstances did not force the parties to agree on the terms of the contract (Riley, 2000).
Consequently, the object of the contractual arrangements should be valid per se. Given the fact that the vehicle is the only object of the agreement between the parties, while there is no information that this car is involved in any activity forbidden by the legislation, the object may be found as legal one. Therefore, all essential requirements as to the conclusion of the valid agreement between the parties have been made (Check Hayden, 2012). However, it is clear from the information provided in the merits of the case that the dealer did not perform his obligations towards Harley during the initial stage of the negotiations where the offer and acceptance took place. In fact, the parties stipulated the exact time when the arrangement should be made in form of the submission of the payment from Harley to the dealer with the purpose to purchase the car. Harley accomplished his obligations towards the dealer as he conducted the meeting with the manager of the bank for the receipt of the loan. Due to the fact that he acknowledged the availability of the time for the submission of the payment to the dealer beyond force majeure events related to the family circumstances, the merits of the case evidence that Harley sent the information about the payment before the expiration of the deadline. In this regard, he should be found as the only purchaser of the car which is the object of the contractual relations between the parties. From another perspective, one may see that the dealer did not find it was reasonable to wait to the strict expiration of the deadline for the conclusion of the agreement stipulated with Harley and entered other arrangement with new purchase that infringed the previous deal. Therefore, the dealer has violated the contractual obligations towards Harley that arise from the terms and conditions agreed on the stage of the submission of the offer and acceptance between the parties. In case Harley decides to claim his right for the car before the court, he will have legal standing to prove his intention to maintain contractual relations with the dealer and finalize the arrangement suitable to the purchase of the vehicle. Thus, the behaviour of the dealer may be regarded as illegal one due to the violation of the initial terms of the contract with Harley.
Bibliography
Check Hayden, E. (2012). Informed consent: A broken contract. Nature, 486(7403), pp.312-314.
Coloma, G. (2008). Damages for Breach of Contract, Impossibility of Performance and Legal Enforceability. Review of Law & Economics, 4(1).
Oldham, J. and Atiyah, P. (1982). The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract. The American Journal of Legal History, 26(1), p.81.
Mead, L., Sagar, D. and Bampton, K. (2008). Fundamentals of ethics, corporate governance and business law. Oxford: Elsevier.
Riley, C. (2000). Designing Default Rules in Contract Law: Consent, Conventionalism, and Efficiency. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20(3), pp.367-390.
Totyev, K. (n.d.). Business Transaction Invalidity In the Context of the Principle of Legality. SSRN Electronic Journal.
