Madison Vs Manchester City Council Essay

Task 4: Applications of Essential Legal Elements for a Valid Contract.
Scenario 1: Madison v Edinburgh City Council
In Madison v Edinburgh City Council, Mr Madison, a council tenant, applied to purchase his council house from the council. He received a letter from Edinburgh City Council saying they ‘may be prepared to sell the house to you’ for £2180.00. Mr Madison said that the path to the house was in a bad state and queried the price had stated. The council said the price had been fixed allowing for the condition of the property and would not amend the price.

On 18th March 1971 Mr Madison wrote to the council again and requested that they ‘carry on with the purchase as per my application’. In May 1971 the political control of the council

Application: The council’s letter was not an offer and it was only an invitation to treat therefore no contract had been made with Mr Madison. His application was an offer that the council had refused. The words ‘may be prepared to sell the house to you’ and the request for a formal application clearly indicated that the offer was being invited from Mr Madison

In similar case to Gibson v Manchester City Council, Mr Gibson requested details from the council about the proposed sale of its housing stock to existing tenants. The council replied by letter, stating that ‘the council may be prepared to sell the house to you’. It included a discounted purchase price and mortgage and invited formal applications. Mr Gibson applied but after local elections the council reversed its policy and refused to sell.

The court held it was only an invitation to treat and not an offer by the Manchester City Council.

Scenario 2: Jennifer

The bungalow formed part of the estate of her husband’s father who had died leaving the property to his wife for life and then on trust for Jennifer’s husband and his four siblings. After the work had been carries out the brothers and sisters signed a document stating in consideration of you carrying out the repairs we agree that the executors pay £480 from the proceeds of sales. However, the payment was never made.

Application: No valid contract existed since the bungalow improvements were past consideration; they had been carried out before any promise to pay had been made.

In Re McArdle, a similar case, a house was left by Re McArdle to his wife for life. On her death it was to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the children of the marriage. The wife of one of the children paid for home improvements at a cost of £488. When the work had been done all the children agreed that she should recover this sum from the proceeds of the eventual sale. After Mrs McArdle died the validity of this agreement was disputed. It was held that past consideration before the act was carried out is not valid consideration.

Scenario 3: Wodehouse v