1. Agreement Flashcards
Storer v Manchester City Council
MCC’s letter enclosing an agreement for sale in stating that it ‘will’ sign the document is sufficiently clear and certain to constitute an offer
Gibson v Manchester City Council
MCC’s letter stating that it ‘may be prepared to sell’ lacks clarity and certainty to constitute offer
Fisher v Bell
Display a flick knife in shop window was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists
Display of goods on shelves was an invitation to treat
Partridge v Crittenden
Ad is invitation to treat
Grainger & Son v Gough
Wine list circulated by merchant is invitation to treat
Obiter: if supplier is also manufacturer, there may be an inference that there is an offer for sale on the basis that the manufacturer could in theory have unlimited supplies
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Ad may be a unilateral offer
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada
Invitation to tender that states commitment to accept highest bid amounts to valid offer
Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool BC
Invitation to tender may amount to offer to consider (rather than accept) a bid fulfilling certain stipulations
Payne v Cave
Auctioneer’s request for bids is invitation to treat
Revocation possible at any time before acceptance
Taylor v Laird
Offer has no validity unless communicated to offeree
Hyde v Wrench
Counter-offer constitutes rejection - therefore not possible to accept original offer after making counter-offer
Acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with terms of offer
Stevenson, Jacques v McLean
Inquiry as to whether different payment terms would be possible is a rfi, not counter-offer
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Postal rule doesn’t apply to revocation
Dickenson v Dodds
Revocation by 3rd party may be valid
Great Northern Railway Co v Witham
For unilateral contracts, revocation is possible any time prior to performance of required act
Errington v Errington and Woods
Revocation not possible where offeree has partly performed obligation, and is willing and able to complete
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore
Offer may lapse through passage of time
Financings Ltd v Stimson
Non-fulfilment of condition in offer may cause offer to lapse
Boulton v Jones
Offer can only be accepted by person to whom it is addressed
R v Clarke
Offer is not accepted by doing required act in ignorance of offer
Williams v Cowardine
Performance of required act is valid acceptance of unilateral offer, provided there is knowledge of the offer, even if act is performed for different motive
Felthouse v Bindley
Offeror may not stipulate that he will take silence to be acceptance
Taylor v Allon
Offeree’s conduct may amount to acceptance
Powell v Lee
Acceptance communicated by third party without authority is not valid
Daulia v Four Milbank Nominees
Acceptance of unilateral offer requires complete performance
Offeror may revoke at any time up to point that act has been fully performed, subject to qualification that, one performance has commenced, offeror is under implied obligation not to prevent thatvperformance
Adams v Lindsell
The postal rule
Howell Securities v Hughes
Postal rule may be ousted
Re London and Northern Bank, ex parte Jones
Acceptance is not properly posted by putting it into the hands of a postman who is only authorised to deliver letters
Henthorn v Fraser
Letter accepting an offer which is posted before the revocation is received (but after it is sent) is valid
Household Fire Insurance v Grant
Postal rule applies even where acceptance is delayed or lost in the post
Quenerduaine v Cole
Postal rule doesn’t apply where it is unreasonable to use post
Getreide v Contimar
Postal rule displaced where acceptance incorrectly addressed
Entores v Miles
For instantaneous communication, actual communication is required and the postal rule doesn’t apply
The Brimnes
Telex sent during ordinary office hours but not seen by office staff until the following Monday held to be effective when received (rather than when read)
Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping
Telex sent outside office hours held to be effective as of the start business on the next working day
Thomas v BPE Solicitors
Meaning of office hours is dependent on context
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments
Where offeror prescribes made of acceptance but does not stipulate that only that mode shall be binding, any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will suffice
Tinn v Hoffman
Where other modes not expressly excluded, any mode equally advantageous to offeror will be sufficient - key issue usually speed
Yates v Pulleyn
Stipulation that acceptance be by recorded delivery could be waived, since this was for the benefit of the offeree
Well Barn Farming v Backhouse
Presumption to create legal relations in commercial contracts
Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros
Presumption of intention to create legal relations in commercial context may be rebutted
Balfour v Balfour
Presumption is no intention to create legalrelations in domestic/social contexts
Peck v Lateau
Presumption of non-intention to create legal relations may be rebutted in domestic/social context
