Application: The above mentioned rules of counter offer and supply of information are reflecting the conditions of John and Dan. Here Dan has verbally discussed the loss that may incur to the suit; he has in particular mention one kind of damage to the suit if it is dry cleaned, that is discolouring, which was acceptable by John. Therefore he has signed the terms and conditions.
However, the loss incurred due to dry cleaning results in complete loss of the asset breaching the law of counter offer. John claims damages from the dry cleaner, where as Dan emphasis on the signed clause which says he won’t be responsible for any damage.
Evidence: The evidence for the spoiled suit is eye witness John, who has received his wedding dress in a complete worn out condition; therefore he won’t be able to make his wedding day most memorable by wearing the best suit in his entire wardrobe.
Conclusion: The responsibility, however, lies on the misinterpretation of the expected loss by the drycleaner, which imposes a question mark on the doctrine of negligent behaviour of the drycleaner, who is now subjected to pay for the damages caused to John’s wedding suit because of his negligence. Moreover, on the contract on which, Dan is emphasizing the points given that he won’t be responsible for any damage incurred during the dry cleaning, is subject to void, because the contract portrays certain terms, which are distinctive than the actual damage that has been incurred to the suit, and the damage is higher than the loss mentioned in the contract.