Client Advice Letter

Legal Method B Client advice letter Practice client advice letter 15 October 2021 Re: Attempted purchase of jet ski from Moby Further to our meeting regarding the legalities of you attempting to purchase a jet ski from Moby. This letter provides my assessment of the relevant case Ngoi v wen [2017] NZCA 519, and how it can be applied as precedent to the current legal situation you find yourself in. The issue in your case is whether Moby agreed to the terms of the sale and is legally obligated to follow through with the sale of the jet ski. In Ngoi v Wen, the appellant, Dr Ngoi, entered into a contract with Ms Wen to purchase a property from her. They negotiated back and forward with a number of counter offers until coming to a final agreement. Dr Ngoi’s initials were signed before the price was entered into the contract. Ms Wen told her real-estate agent that she wished to withdraw her offer to sell. However, Dr Ngoi was under the impression that they had entered a legally binding contract, considering that all three parties had a phone call in which they discussed and agreed to the terms of the contract. The issue in this case is whether the parties had entered into a legally enforceable contract regarding the sale and purchase of property. Although your case is not related to property law, many of the facts and relevant law are similar and can be used to predict the possible outcome of your case against Moby in a court of law. For a contract to constitute as a legally binding agreement there are five essential elements it must cover. These include offer and acceptance, consideration, intention, capacity, and certainty. If any one of these elements isn’t covered in an agreement, no legally binding contract was created. In your current legal situation, after going back and forward with counter offers, yourself and Moby came to an agreement in which he would sell you the jet ski for $17,500; you shook hands after coming to this agreement. After reviewing the facts of your case, a contract was formed between both parties based on a mutual agreement that no formal documents required signatures. You had previously disclosed to Moby that you did not see the need for signatures – “a firm handshake, and perhaps a shared bottle of rum to seal the deal.” After agreeing upon a sale price, you shook hands and shared a pot of tea. This is proof of offer and acceptance. While negotiating the terms of the sale you made it clear you did not require a formally signed document to constitute as a contract. By shaking hands upon agreement Moby demonstrated that he agreed to these terms. In the case Ngoi v Wen, the court found that “[a]n offer which requires acceptance to be expressed or communicated in a specified way can generally be accepted only in that way.” The Court then went on to elaborate by saying, “What is important, however, is not the formalities of how Ms Wen’s offer was accepted but whether there was clearly an acceptance of an offer.” This can be applied as precedent to your contract with Moby, as there was no formally written contract. Yet this is not necessary as he showed his acceptance in words and actions when he agreed to shake your hand and share tea with you. In Ngoi v Wen, Ms Wen decided she no longer wished to sell the property, demonstrating “sellers’ remorse” after the contract had been finalised. The Court found that after the terms of the contract have been accepted by both parties it must be fulfilled. In your case Moby wished to revoke his offer to sell, also demonstrating “sellers’ remorse.” In the precedent case the court found that this is not a good enough reason to breach a contract. Capacity refers to the individuals involved in the formation of a contract being able to communicate their own decisions. It is safe to assume in your case that Moby is of sound mind and is very capable of understanding the terms he agreed to as he is under no forms of duress. Therefore, the element of capacity has been fulfilled and does not come into question when analysing the current case. Offer and acceptance must demonstrate what is referred to in law as a ‘meeting of minds.’ The terms of an agreement must be certain, leaving no room for interpretation. In your case, the terms of the contract between yourself and Moby are made very clear. You mutually agreed that you would purchase the jet ski from him for $17,500, which you would pay cash for the day after reaching an agreement (18 July), when he brought the jet ski around to your place to exchange it for payment. In the case Ngoi v Wen, the Court ruled in favour of the appellant Dr Ngoi, stating that “a binding contract was formed.” After analysing the facts of Ngoi v wen, I believe the contract you have formed is legally binding as he did in fact accept the terms of the agreement. I am confident that if you were to take this matter to court, it is likely their decision would be in your favour. Yours faithfully