Acceptance Flashcards
What case is used as an example of a mirror image of the offer?
Neale v Merrett (1930)
Neale v Merrett (1930)
One party offered to sell property for a £280 lump sum. The other party accepted by sending £80 and promising to pay the remainder in monthly instalments. This was ineffective as the offeree had not accepted the original offer.
What case is an example of communication is only effective if made by an authorised person?
Powell v Lee (1908)
Powell v Lee (1908)
The claimant was told by a member of the appointment board that he had been successful in his job application. However, the job was given to someone else. It was held that because the person who communicated this to the claimant was not authorised to do so. It was not seen as effective communication and he failed his case.
What case is an example of conduct as a form of communication?
Brogden v Metropolitain Railway Co (1877)
Brogden v Metropolitain Railway Co (1877)
Brogden had been supplying coal to the railway company for some years. The company suggested they should form a new contract and duly sent a draft to Brogden. Brogden added a few terms of his own and sent the signed form back to the railway company. The parties then continued to trade. It was held that the contract sent by Brogden had been accepted by conduct. The contract sent by Brogden was a counteroffer which was accepted by the company when they placed an order.
What cases are examples of the postal rule as a form of communication?
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
On 2nd September the defendants sent a letter of an offer to sell wool to the claimant, they stated that any acceptance must be by return of post. The letter was wrongly addressed so did not arrive until 5th September. The claimant posted their acceptance immediately which arrived on the 9th On the 8th believing that the claimants did not want the wool, the defendants sold it to a third party. It was held that their claim should succeed. The claimant had complied with the terms of the offer by posting the acceptance immediately. Once the letter was posted it accepted the offer and the delay in communication was the fault of the defendants.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
1st October – The defendant posted an offer from Cardiff to the claimant in New York.
8th October – The defendant changed his mind and posted a letter of revocation.
11th October – The defendants offer arrived and the claimant sent a telegram accepting the offer
15th October – The claimant confirmed his acceptance
20th October – The letter of revocation was received.
It was held that the contract had been formed on the 11th October. The revocation was only effective when it arrived in New York, and it came after the acceptance had been sent.
What case is an example of Parties can avoid the postal rule by insisting on a different means of communications or stating that letters are effective on receipt?
Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
The offeror granted an option to the offeree concerning the purchase of some land, which had to be exercised by ‘notice in writing’. The claimant’s letter of acceptance was posted before the deadline but arrived after the deadline had expired. It was held that no contract existed as the postal rule had been implicitly excluded by the offeror who, by requiring notice in writing, had indicated that he must receive the letter of communication for it to be effective.
What case is an example of the offeror cannot waive the communication rule?
Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
The claimant offered to buy a horse and said that he would assume the seller agrees unless he hears differently. The seller intended to accept and asked for the horse to be withdrawn from an auction, but it was sold by mistake. The claimant sued the auctioneer. His claim failed as he was not the owner of the horse. The seller had never communicated acceptance to the buyer and as such, it still belonged to the seller when it was sold.
