Thecontentious issue in this situation is whether the pre-contractual statementsmade by Jafari about the vacuum becomes terms of a contract despite Jafari usedrepresentation and puffery to encourage Aadhya and Vernon to purchase theproduct. Theconsensus ad idem between both of the parties agreed on the type of vacuum isneeded. It is an express term by Aadhya and Vernon that they were buying thetrailer for the purpose of operating a cleaning business.  There was the condition for Aadhya and Vernonto purchase it otherwise they wouldn’t do it. A condition is a vital term thatforms part of the contract, without the term the party would not have enteredinto the contract in the first place. Illustrated in the case study AssociatedNewspapers Ltd v Bancks when offeror proposals a contract with a condition bythe offeree and it is an accepted contract, the condition is to be acontractually binding as a promise. Banks agreed to develop a full page of hisdrawing to associated newspaper, but with the condition, the drawings must beon the front page of the comic sections of the newspaperInapplying the legal rule of the case of Associated Newspapers Ltd v, Bancks inthe Jafari v Aadhya & Vernon case study is the party condition if forthemselves to purchase any vacuum cleaner.

It must be able to have the capacityof the following conditions was to be able to handle high volumes of vacuumingfor the long extended period as well as the ability to remove pet haireffectively without these conditions they wouldn’t form part of a contract withJafari. As Jafari expressed statements about the vacuum were align to Aadhya& Vernon conditions, it is therefore accepted, and the statements form partof the contract due without Aadhya conditions they wouldn’t have entered thecontract. Inconclusion, as Jafari statements are terms of the contract as that is thereason why Aadhya & Vernon have entered into the contract, the statementsmade by Jafari forms part of the contract has become legally binding.