eSignature Lawfulness for Advertising Agreement in Australia

How to eSign a document: e-signature lawfulness for Advertising Agreement in Australia

[Music] after the offerer sends this clear message that they wish to enter into an agreement with the offeree if the offeree accepts this offer we then have an agreement so offer plus acceptance equals agreement in some circumstances we don't see a clear set of terms being posed or being put on the table by one party for the other party to agree to what we see in some circumstances is a party who is inviting another party to negotiate further or to enter into a bargaining process with them when this happens the law recognizes this communication not as illegally binding offer but as an invitation to treat so a legally binding offer is a clear set of terms which us the other party to enter into an agreement with them whereas an invitation to treat is communication which invites the other party to enter into negotiation with them or it can be part of the negotiation process which may take place prior to an agreement being reached knowing the difference between an invitation to treat and a legal binding offer is essential for you as a law student and it is essential because you may be asked to identify which one is present in a problem question the consequence of a legally binding offer plus an acceptance being present in a problem question providing all the other legally binding elements are present in the agreement is that we have a contract so offer plus acceptance equals agreement and if everything else that we require for the formation of a contract in English law is present then we have a contract but if what we had initially was an invitation to treat and one party believes that they have accepted this invitation to treat then no contract has been formed and no contract has been formed because an invitation to treat cannot be accepted so how do the courts distinguish between illegally binding offer and an invitation to treat the courts look at the messaging question and they try to determine whether or not a bystander a reasonable bystander would understand the messaging question to be one which required the receiving party to say yes I accept or whether the message in question would have required the second party the receiving party to have negotiated further if the courts determined that the message in question simply required the receiving party to say yes I accept this or no I don't accept this without the need for any further negotiation then the court would argue or would determine that that message in question was in fact and in law a legally binding offer but if the courts determine that and observing bystander a reasonable one would have determined that the messaging question really required further negotiation further discussion then the court would say this is not illegally binding offer that we're looking at this is an invitation to treat now in some circumstances it is not just one message that the courts look at in some circumstances the court needs to look at a series of communication and when they look at these series of communication between the parties they then determine whether or not the messaging question could be reasonably perceived to have been an invitation to treat meaning a message that would have required one of the parties to negotiate further or whether or not this message in question based upon their examination of the series of communication simply required a yes I accept and if they determine that that after looking at this series of communication and all the other party needed to do was say yes I accept or no I don't accept then they would say this message in question is certainly a legally binding offer