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.

Conclusion

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.

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

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