A contract is a legally binding agreement between at least two parties.
The basic principles of formation of contract govern formation all contracts, whether you:
And it's all controlled by contract law.
Some contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. Most don't.
Many businesses make the mistake that if there is no written contract, there cannot be a contract. The rules apply to oral contracts as well, and those formed by conduct of the parties.
The rules apply across the board.
To make a legally binding contract, 5 elements must be satisfied: offer, acceptance, consideration, intention and capacity:
Once those elements exist, you have legally binding contract.
But getting there can be tricky, particularly if it’s a verbal contract.
We run through each of the elements below.
Also, there must be no vitiating factors (such as misrepresentation or illegality) which impair the validity of formation of the contract.
Otherwise, what was a legally binding can reversed, and declared void ab initio at law: ie at law, it was never made. The remedy that makes that happen is rescission.
The form of communication used to make the contract is irrelevant, other than where statutory requirements dictate that to be enforceable, it must satisfy the named prerequisites.
Contracts therefore be made - and varied - in telephone calls, Skype calls, Skype IMs, face to face conversations, email, SMS (text) messages, WhatsApp messages, Telegram or Signal messages - you name it.
In fact, words do not even need to be spoken to form a contract, provided each of the 5 elements are present.
Forming a contract could be done with:
That's because they're all methods of communication or taken to be forms of communication.
When statute law has requirements for a type of contract, they're usually that the agreement is recorded in written form, and signed by the one or both of the parties or their authorised agent.
If you don't mind me saying, to properly understand contract law, you need to appreciate the principle of freedom of contract.
One of the first principles of contract law is autonomy.
Businesses are free to contract on terms and on any terms they choose. They may allocate risks within their contracts as they wish. It is up to the parties to decide what risks they will accept and on what terms.
Courts will respect their decisions and enforce the deals that they sign up to.
Of course there are exceptions.
But the principle of freedom of contract comes before all of the exceptions.
That's basically how the law works:
These areas of law include:
It means parties choosing to contract with one another can do so on any terms. For so long as it satisfies the requirements of a contract, it's binding.
Unless the law says it's not.
But there are exceptions to these policies. The exceptions are limited.
The exceptions revolve around unfair conduct.
Not giving notice can backfire - and badly.
They're all principles of fair and open dealing.
In all of these types of cases, legal remedies are available to take corrective action, as sanctioned by the law.
There is a downside to freedom of contract too. Courts expect businesses to understand the legal effect of documents that they sign and commit to.
Courts say that the parties to a contract are the best judge of the commercial fairness of a proposed contract. Businesses are also the best judge to decide whether the terms of an agreement are reasonable - before committing them.
Courts do not readily accept in business law cases that a company will commit itself to an agreement which it thinks is unfair, or contains unreasonable terms.
Unless one party has taken unfair advantage of the other, or a term is so unreasonable that it cannot properly have been understood or considered, courts are unlikely to interfere with the contractual relationship.
Courts know just like everyone else that that insurance is available to mitigate against risk presented by any particular contract.
Likewise, courts treat adults as grown-ups.
One of the leading statements of the approach taken by the common law was recorded in 1875 by Jessell MR in Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson:
If there is one thing that more than another public policy required, it is that [people] of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice.
That's still the position at common law.
It's this harsh approach that ultimately led to the introduction of the Unfair Contract Terms Act in 1978, and other consumer protection legislation after that. To be clear - consumer protection legislation is there to protect those buying goods and services as consumers, not as businesses: ie business to consumer contracts. These days, the Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to business to business contracts.
The overriding principle is that it's a legally being contract unless some law or legal principle says that it's not.
Here are the elements that make a contract, a contract.
The Elements of a Contract: The Law
An offer is a promise to do, or not to do something that is capable of acceptance by another person.
An offer is made by an “offeror” to an “offeree”.
Would a reasonable person to whom the offer was made, acting reasonably, understand that the offeror was making a proposal to which the offeror intended to be bound in the event of an unequivocal acceptance?
Then, contract = formed.
One of the following may happen:
Each of these possible responses to an offer are fundamentally important.
That’s because a legally binding contract will - or won’t - be formed, depending on what happens next.
To reach agreement on what has been agreed and to form a contract, the parties must agree:
It’s that simple - in principle.
In the real world, it can get quite messy.
Acceptance of an offer forms the "agreement" - not the contract - between the parties.
(Forming a contract - rather than merely reaching agreement - in the strict sense of the word requires the presence of the other 3 elements listed above: (1) consideration, (2) with the intention to create a legally binding contract, and (3) contractual capacity)
Acceptance in contract law must:
Acceptance must take place while the offer is open for acceptance.
An offer made today is not likely to remain open for acceptance months from now. It would have lapsed with time and no longer remain available for acceptance.
Where there is a variance between what has been offered and the “acceptance”, the “acceptance” is treated as a counteroffer. (A mismatch between the offer and the acceptance is one of the things the law of mistake is about)
For example, if I offer to work for you on Saturdays and Sundays and you say, “OK, I’ll accept you working on Fridays and Saturdays” – you have made a counteroffer. You have not accepted my offer on the terms it was offered.
Acceptance doesn't need to be complicated or formal.
Suppose a shopkeeper that makes an offer to sell you a specified pair of shoes for £10. You respond with, “Yes”, “OK”, “No problem”, "I accept" or a nod of your head.
If you would like to take the [offer], I simply need you to reply to this email with your confirmation by stating ‘Agreed’ or ‘Confirmed’.
Once these elements of acceptance are satisfied, the agreement is finalised.
Acceptance may take place by the behaviour of the offeree, that is, by their conduct.
For example, the possible outcomes are:
To be legally binding, a contract must be “supported by consideration”. Some value must pass from each party to the other for the agreement to become a legally binding agreement.
Once the contract has been formed, there are different types of consideration:
(Consideration in contract law is simple in theory, but can get difficult in practice.)
To form a contract, a party must have the legal capacity to do so.
The categories of legal person (which includes natural persons) which don’t have legal capacity are:
There's also the related point that some individuals may not have power to legally bind a company or other incorporated legal entity, such as a director of a company which has appointed a liquidator (it's a point related to actual or ostensible authority).
In business transactions, legal capacity will usually be one of the more straightforward elements of a contract to satisfy.
This is the last element to create a legally binding contract.
The parties must intend that the offer and acceptance is legally binding upon them: that known as "contractual intention".
In commercial negotiations, it's presumed that the parties intend to create a legal relationship.
When there is a dispute about whether a contract was formed or not, it's for the party alleging that there was no intention to create a legal relationship to prove it: ie they bear the burden of proof. And they must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
In the context of commercial contracts, that can be a tough ask.
Lord Clarke said in RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH & Co KG [2010] UKSC 14:
Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and, if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed.
It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding relations.
The assessment of the intention to be legally bound is usually assessed on the basis of an objective test: where a reasonable bystander would think that the parties had the relevant intention, the parties are bound.
However, there's a significant exception to the operation of this default rule.
Where one of the parties actually knows that the other party does not actually have an intention to be bound, that party will not be permitted to rely on the objective test to get the better of the other contracting party.
… a person who does not intend to contract will be bound by the objective appearances of contract, but may not himself be entitled to invoke the objective test so as to hold another party to an alleged contract.
So the test is primarily objective, but falls back to a subject test when there is evidence that the other person knew that their counterpart did not have any subjective intention to make a contract.
Above are the elements which give rise to a legally binding contract.
In the lead up to creation of the contract, statements can be made, misunderstandings can arise which undermine the legally binding nature of the contract. And then one of the parties might mislead their counterpart (knowingly or not) in respect to some fact, state of affairs or term of the contract.
The most common causes of action which can interfere with creation of a business contract or permit it to be made void include:
In mistake cases, the contract might be:
There is an important distinction to be made between contracts which are void and claims for breach of contract.
So that means that the remedies of rescission and damages for breach of contract are inconsistent with one another: you can't have both at the same time.
There are business dealings which give the impression that legally binding agreement has come into place. However, where the criterion to form a contract have not been satisfied there can be no contract.
An invitation to treat is an express or implied request to someone to make an offer. They form part of preliminary discussions which lead up to an offer being made.
As they are not offers, they are not able to be accepted. A definite offer capable of acceptance has not been made.
Invitations to treat usually precede offers in lines or chains of communications: commonly email threads.
The communication after an invitation to treat has been made is likely to be read as an offer.
It follows that when something is referred to as an offer doesn’t necessarily make it an offer for the purposes of offer and acceptance.
Whether a statement or presentation of a product or service is an invitation to treat depends on:
If there is no evidence one way or the other, you're left to looking at the intentions of the parties and objectively construe contractual statements to determine their legal effect.
There is an element of public policy at play here at well. Advertisements cannot be easily retracted. It would not be desirable for advertisers to be bound to deliver when an order is placed for an advertised product. Even Amazon runs out of products stocked. Products reach end of life (and in some cases can't be sold due to illegality), and advertisements might be place don some websites that cannot be easily removed by the wholesaler or retailer
The price is finalised when the auctioneer’s hammer concludes the sale. That's acceptance of the offer.
Up until that time, the auctioneer is free to reject any bid
The way online marketplaces and auctions operate are quite different to common law auctions.
They're set up by contracts between the business running the auction site, the seller/vendor and potential customers/buyers. The obvious example is eBay, but the there's OnBuy, Allegro and Bol.com.
There are usually two contracts for the auction process, followed by a third:
The agreements are usually set up so that the business running the online auction website merely introduce sellers to potential buyers.
The business responsible for the website doesn't make any commitment to:
even when they agree a price between one another. That would expose the business to claims for breach of contract from consumers and businesses alike.
All of this means that the exact contractual relationships will change form marketplace to marketplace and from one eCommerce provider to another.
The company usually retains (or should retain) the power to select from applicants and allot shares to applicants as they see fit.
Rewards for the return of lost or stolen property are presumed to be offers.
From a legal perspective, none of these statements suggest or imply that a contract would follow as a result of the response.
The response to these questions would probably be an offer. To do so, it would need to satisfy the criterion to constitute an offer, listed above.
The purpose of heads of terms and letters of intent is to distil down to the basic points, the essential terms of a contract which will be entered in the future.
You could call this reaching “commercial agreement”. It's not intended to be legally binding. They're communications which are part of the negotiations. The “legally binding” contract is to come later.
Heads of terms and letters of intent usually contain:
When it is headed “subject to contract”, it affirms that the parties don’t intend the heads of terms to be legally binding.
Whether they remain non-legally binding is another question.
A further step – such as drawing up of a formal contract – is intended to take place before a contract is formed.
It’s when parties actually start working together the heads of terms may become a legally binding contract, whether that is the intended consequence or not.
So are heads of terms or a letter of intent a contract, and legally binding? It depends on how they have:
When it comes to deciding whether any spoken words or written communication form a legally binding contract, there needs to be at least two communications: the offer and the acceptance.
Where the requisite contractual intention exists, and consideration exists, a contract is formed.
In summary though any of these descriptions of documents are legally binding is highly fact specific. A small change in the facts can lead to a different conclusion of its legal effect.
The law does not recognise a contract - or agreement - to enter into a contract in the future. It has no binding force, because the offer and acceptance do not exist. To put it another way, what are the terms of the offer?
One or more of the offer, acceptance or consideration remain too uncertain.
It might be different if the parties agree to enter into a specific form of contract - which contains agreement of all the specific terms required to form a contract in the future.
Declarations of a contract which is void for uncertainty is a distant last resort.
When there is a fundamental term remaining to be agreed between parties and subject to negotiation, there is no contract.
Contracts to negotiate are is too uncertain to have any binding force.
Courts are not able to estimate the damages for a theoretical breach. There is no causation or reasonable foreseeability of loss.
No one can tell whether the negotiations would be successful or fall through: or if successful, what the result would be.
When the language used by parties to reach an agreement is so vague and indeterminate so as prevent a reliable interpretation of the contractual intentions, in all likelihood, there will be no contract.
Broad statements of intention, sentiment or policy which do not show any definite meaning on which courts can safely act cannot have legal effect.
Courts will do their best when there is an ascertainable and determinate intention to contract to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
Preference is given to substance over the form. Difficulties of interpretation do not prevent formation of a contract: it is when the intentions are so ambiguous that no definite meaning can be extracted which prevents it from being a contract.
One you have a legally binding contract, the law applies to it whether it is:
In other words, however the contract might be formed.
Forming a legally binding contract does not need to be a deliberate act. It can happen although you had no intention of forming a contract.
Once the fundamental elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to be legally bound and capacity exists, a series of legal consequences arise as part of the contractual relationship.
Those rules apply, subject to agreement to the contrary.
We're a UK based small business law firm in London: ie business law solicitors. We advise businesses of all shapes and sizes on business law, contract law, and have particular expertise assisting businesses with IT related business disputes.
We advise SMEs on:
Have a business law problem and can't see the way to the end of it? Need advice on a business to contract, or a contract checked over for defects and pitfalls? To speak with a business contract solicitor, call +44 20 7036 9282 or email us at contact@hallellis.co.uk.