Business Law Foundation: Analyzing a Scenario Using the Business Law ILAC Method

Need Full Solution?

Request a FREE quote now!

Order Now


Utilizing The Business Law Ilac Method, Read And Analyze The Following Scenario.

Ming owned a boat that was highly admired by Lee. On the 20th of April, she wrote a letter to Lee offering to sell the boat to her for a price of $10,000. Ming received the letter the very next day, on receipt of which she immediately contacted Ming over the phone to disclose her admiration for the boat and asked to ask her to hold the boat for her for a week, considering she needed time to think about it, to which Ming agreed. Before the expiration of the week, Lee contacted Ming again expressing her acceptance to Ming’s offer and told her that she would bring her payment for the boat the very next day. Ming however explained that she had sold the boat to Cheery, earlier that day. This news got Lee infuriated. She demanded for Ming to procure the boat from Cherry and subsequently sell it to her.

Does there exist between Ming and Lee, any enforceable contract? Please shed light on the scenario utilizing the principles of Contract Law, Business Law Ilac Method, and relevant case studies.


Issue: The question that needs to be clarified in this situation is whether Ming and Lee have an enforceable contract based on her pledge to hold the boat for Lee, keeping in mind the principles of business law as applied by the Ilac Method. The following are the pertinent facts that must be taken into account in this case.

• In a letter that Lee received the following day, Ming made Lee an offer by stating that she would sell her yacht to Lee for the sum of $10,000.

Ming reached out to Ming in response to the letter very quickly, asking for a week to evaluate Ming's offer, to which Ming consented.

• Before the allotted time had passed, Lee phoned Ming with the intention of accepting her offer, but she was informed that Cherry had already purchased the item in question.

• After regaining the boat from Cherry, Lee insisted that Ming sell it to her because she had already asked him to hold it for her and had his acceptance of her request.

In these situations, the Business Law Ilac Method is quite apparent. According to contract law, any assurance that an offer will remain open for a specific period of time must be accompanied by a consideration that is separate from the offer's consideration. In essence, there would be two independent contracts: one for the item in issue and another to maintain the offer for the first contract's availability and openness for a set period of time. These contracts are designed to provide someone the opportunity to conduct any necessary research about the thing being offered in the main contract before the person to whom the offer has been made enters into the main contract. This is a technique to ensure that, if there are costs associated with looking into the object in question and, if the person looking into it stands to gain from such inquiries, they will be covered.

Application: Our comprehension of the Business Law Ilac Method and numerous legal cases help us better appreciate the judicial perspective on this issue. In the case of Dickinson v. Dodds (1876), the defendant Dodds made the plaintiff Dickinson an offer to buy his house and agreed to keep the offer open for a predetermined period of time. However, the plaintiff finds out that the defendant had sold the residence to a third party prior to the conclusion of the predetermined time period. When the plaintiff confronts the defendant, he declares that he is ready to accept the concession. But the defendant informs the plaintiff that the property had already been sold and that it is irrelevant whether he accepts or not. In this case, it is vital to keep in mind that a legitimate contract must also include a consideration in addition to an offer and acceptance. Since there was no consideration in this case to begin with, the contract is void. In the case of Dickinson v. Dodds, the court reached the same conclusion. Even though Ming accepted Lee's offer to wait for a week, in the lack of consideration, it wasn't a legally enforceable agreement. This is because of the similarities between the case Dickinson v. Dodds and the scenario mentioned as well as the ideas covered in Business Law Ilac Method. Ming is therefore not responsible.


According to the Business Law Ilac Method, certain qualities must be present for a contract to be considered legitimate. Consideration is a crucial component of every contract. The pledge made by Ming is void and not legally enforceable because Lee failed to provide any consideration for the location where Ming was expected to hold the boat according to their agreement. As a result, Ming had the full right to sell Cherry the boat before the time limit set by Ming and Lee expired.

Turner, Chris (2007). Unlocking contract law (2nd ed. ed.). London

Case Law
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 46

Message me