Acceptance Flashcards
Harvey v Facey
Harvey - “Will you sell us BHP? Telegraph lowest cash price?”
Facey - “Lowest cash price for BHP is 900.”
Harvey - “We agree to buy BHP for 900 asked by you. Please send your title details—-.”
Harveys first telegraph was not a offer, but rather a request for infomation, nor was Faceys statement a acceptance, merely providing the infomation requested
Fisher v Bell
A display of goods with a price label is merely a invitaion to treat, not an offer
Spencer v Hardy
Clarifes that even if a advertisment stated it was an “offer,” it was never the less a invitation to treat
dependant on fisher v bell
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
established the principle of a Unilateral contract, in which the offer doesn’t have to be addressed at an individual, but rather can be taken as set of terms which can be accepted by anyone, acceptance starts once the act contained in the unilateral offer begins, but teh promisee has no contractual obligation to complete the contract.
Errington v Errington and Woods 1952
If an offeree has already begun performing the act and it would be unfair to revoke the offer then there is an implied promise not to revoke contained within the offer. This is a form of promissory estoppel.
As the promisee is relying upon the promise that the contract exists, perforimg the action asked by the promissor
unless context makes it inappropriate to imply a promise not to revoke
Barry v Davis
The Court held that the holding of an auction for sale without reserve is an offer by the auctioneer to sell to the highest bidder, so the defendant was contractually obliged to sell to the claimant. The reasoning behind this was that the auctioneer acted as agent of the owner in the formation of the contract with the highest bidder, and this gave rise to a collateral contract with the auctioneer himself. There was consideration in the form of detriment to the bidder, as his bid could be accepted unless and until it was withdrawn, and benefit to the auctioneer as the price was driven up (and also that attendance at the auction is likely to increase if it is said that there is no reserve).
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper (1941)
acts as an exception to Errington, in this case Luxor created a unilateral contract to find them a buyer of 2 cinimas, offering a fee to someon who brings them a buyer on sale, Cooper does this, but Luxor refused to sell, and therefore Cooper doesnt get his fee.
its inapproate here to assume that there was a promise not to revoke, as there was no clear obligation for Luxor to sell its properies to any buyer,
Hyde v Wrench
It was stated that when a counter offer is made, this supersedes and destroys the original offer. This original offer is no longer available or on the table. In this case, when Mr Hyde offered £950, he cancelled the £1,000 offer and could not back track and accept.
Stevenson V. McLean
Unlike a counter-offer a mere request for infomation does cancel a prior made offer,
see Hyde v Wrench for counter offers
Harvey v Facey for requests of info
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co
Conduct in itself may constitute acceptance provided that it clearly indicates acceptance; it must be an unequivocal act of acceptance, such as in this case where the railway accepted Brogdens counter-offer though the ordering of more coal
Manchester Diocesan v. Commercial Investments
If the offeror sets out a method of acceptance (but does not insist upon it) the offeree can accept by another method if the offeror is not prejudiced by the use of an alternate methord
if the offeror insists upon a method then it must be used
Alternate methords could be, however seen as a counter offer,
Butler v Ex-cello
Butler accepted the offer listed on June 5th which listed no price variations clause perhaps by mistake, and though they listed a cover letter stating they accept the clauses on may 23rd the court held the acknowledgment slip they signed in relation to June 5th as the dominant document and therefore they are the terms.
Entores v. Miles Dar East Cpn
Since Telex was a form of instant messaging, the normal postal rule of acceptance would not apply and instead, acceptance would be when the message by Telex was received. Thus, the contract was created in London. This general principle on acceptance was held to apply to all forms of instantaneous communication methods. Acceptance via these forms of communication had to be clear before any contract is created.
requries the intent to be that it reaches immedatly, see Brinkibon ltd v Stahag Stahl
The Brimnes
Acceptance of a offer is done in the use of instant communication when it could be read, not when it is actually read.
A mistake by the offeror to not check there communications is not the fault of the offeree
Felthouse v Bindley
the offeror cannot by the terms of contract provide that silence shall constitute acceptance, requiring the offeree to take action to reject the offer.
