2 Agreement, Offer, Acceptance Flashcards
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
- Unilateral Offer
- Required performance was clear
- Intention of the offeror was provided by the deposit in the bank and mentioning it in the offer
Partridge v Crittenden
- Birds that were protectet were advertised in a newspaper
Held
- Advertisement is an invitation to treat
- Putting a prohibited product on advertisement is not an illegal offer
Gibson v Manchester City Council
(Facts: Sale of Houses Case)
- Invitation to treat
- Because no price was stated in the letter by the council
-> It was not properly construed as an offer so it was an invitation to treat.
Fisher v Bell
(Facts: Knife (Weapon) on display in a shop which was illegal because restricted)
- Display of Goods is an invitation to treat and no offer!
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Chemists
- Display of goods on supermarket/pharmacy/retail store shelves are an invitation to treat.
- > By selecting the goods the customer makes the offer to buy them which will be either be accepted or rejected by the shop assistant / cashier
Thornton v Shore Lane Parking
- Vending Machines are standing offers
Warlow v Harrison
(Auction case)
- Bid is the offer
- Hammer is the acceptance
Hyde v Wrench
(Farm Sale Case)
- Counter Offer does not form agreement
- Buyer can not go back to original offer after counter offer
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
(Coal Supply Case)
- Acceptance by conduct
- Counter Offer can be accepted by conduct
Stevenson v McLean
(Iron trade case)
- An Inquiry is not a rejection or counter offer
(We have to look closely at the wording) - Revocation has to reach the other party in order to be effective
Yates Building v Pulleyn Sons
(Plot building case)
- Offeror can make a certain communication way a condition
- Any similar advantageous method of acceptance is sufficient when it reaches the offeror correctly
(ad idem - meeting of the minds)
Adams v Lindsell
- Postal Rule of Acceptance
-The offer is accepted at the day when it is posted by the offeree not when it is delivered to the offeror
- It signalises the meeting of the minds (ad idem)
Henthorn v Fraser
(purchase of some houses)
- Postal rule does not apply to revocation of an offer
- Revocation must reach the offeree to become effective
- > claimant was entitled to specific performance.
Household fire v Grant
(Share sale from company case)
Acceptance is complete once it is posted, it does not have to reach the offeror
Holwell v Hughes
- Postal rule does not automatically apply and can be avoided
- In this case receiving the communication writing was expressly stated
Entores v Miles Far East
(Telex case)
Instant Communication acceptance
Jurisdiction is where the acceptance is received
Tenax Steamship v The Brimmes (Brimmes)
(Instant Communication Case)
- Acceptance is reveiced by instant communication during office hours
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl
(Vienna Telex Case)
Contract is concluded where telex/instanct communication acceptance is received
Approving Entores v Miles Far East
Byrne v Van Thienhoven
- Revocation of an offer is not effective until it reaches the other party
- The postal rule does not apply to revocations
- Revocation must reach prior to acceptance
Dickinson v Dodds
- The revocation does not have to be communicated by the offeror himself
- Offeror is free to revoke the offer at any time before acceptance
Errington v Errington & Woods
(Father dies while the son and doughter in law lived in the house he offered them while they performed to pay the installments)
- Revocation of an Unilateral Offer
- > If the offeror in a unilateral offer dies after the performance had begun the offer can not be revoked
Daulia v Four Mill Bank
(Property purchase case in response to unilateral offer)
- Unilateral offer cant be revoked once the performance has begun
Luxor v Cooper
(Cinema property commission sale case)
- If the Unilateral offer asks for “completion” of an act the offeror has the right to revoke before the act is actually completed
Shuey v USA
(Case where the US revoked an offer of rewards for apprehension of a criminal)
- A unilateral offer can only be revoked through the same channels and with the same manner it was made
Scammel v Ouston
(Van hire Case)
- Contract was too vague and uncertain to be enforced, it required further agreement to be reached!
Hillas v Arcos
(Wood trade business contract)
- If the cause of business and product quality is clear to the parties it must not be further specified in order for a binding contract
- > Court can imply terms on commercial practice
Nicolene v Simmonds
“I assume that we are in agreement that the usual conditions of acceptance apply”
This is a meaningless clause, the court can severe it without abandoning the contract as a whole
Walford v Miles
(Negotiation over a sale of company case - Lock Out Clause)
- It was merely an agreement to negotiate and therefore an incomplete contract
- > also no consideration was provided
- > no fixed time limit was provided
Pitt v PHH Assett Management
Enforcable “lockout clause” (clause not to negotiate with someone else) because set time limit
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Implied terms about consideration
- > Reasonable price will be implied if not mentioned in the contract
- > The reasonable charge is a question of fact
Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2005
51: Reasonable price paid for service
- Consumer must pay a reasonable price if nothing other is mentioned not more.
May, Butcher v R
(Parties baught tentage from the government)
No agreement on the price and date -> There was no concluded contract
Foley v Classique Coaches
(Petrol supply without contract over a longer time case)
->Reasonable price and conditions can be implied by the course of dealings over a certain period of time
Sudbrook Trading Estate v Eggleton
(Landlord sale to tenant where landlord did not want to appoint surveyor and said that it was therefore too vague in terms of price to contract case)
-clause was not too vague to be enforceable as it put in place a mechanism to ascertain the price.
British Steel v Cleveland bridge
(No enforcable contract but performance under letter of intent case)
-Could get the value of the products made since they were of benefit.
RTS Systems v Molkerei Mueller
- If a contract with special provision /terms is proposed but not signed and the parties start to perform without signing and both show conduct then there is a binding agreement thus a contract!
- A potential dispute will be governend by standard terms
