Agreement Flashcards
Fisher v Bell 1961
goods in shop windows are ITT’s (knife)
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots the Chemist 1953
goods on display in supermarkets/shops are ITT’s
Partridge v Crittenden 1968
advert to sell illegal birds was ITT
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893
reward poster was offer as it specified exactly what needed to be done to earn the money
Payne v Cave 1789
first identified auctions as offers
Barry v Davies 2000
if an item at auction is advertised without a reserve then the auctioneer must accept highest bid
Spencer v Harding 1870
if acceptance of the highest tender is not specified then they do not have to accept as they are ITT’
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada 1986
if the tender states they will accept the highest bid they are legally obliged to do so
Scammell v Ousten 1941
“standard HP terms” for the sale of a van was unclear and therefore invalid
Guthing v Lynn 1831
“lucky horse” was an ambiguous offer so was invalid
Harvey v Facey 1893
statements of price or requests for further info are not offers
Taylor v Laird 1856
sailor not paid for return voyage as he did not communicate his offer to the offeree
Powell v Lee 1908
offers can only be made with the authority to do so therefore the offer of the job was invalid
Hyde v Wrench 1840
counter offer of £900 rejected the offer of £1000 so they could not then accept the £1000 offer
Ramsgate v Victoria Hotel v Montefiore 1866
6 months to reply to offer to buy shares was too long so offer was no longer valid
Financing v Stimson 1962
car not in previous condition so failure to meet pre condition
Entores v Miles Far East Corp 1955
acceptance must be effectively communicated (scenario of accepting across a river with a plane overhead by Lord Denning)
Eliason v Henshaw 1819
acceptance not valid as did not take place as specified (by wagon)
Yates Building v Pulleyn 1975
acceptance was valid as there was no disadvantage to the offeror
Felthouse v Bindley 1862
silence between nephew & uncle for sale of horse did not amount to acceptance
Errington v Errington
mother could not sell sons house mortgaged by late father as acceptance had taken place when first payment was made
Adams v Lindsell 1818
acceptance made on the 5th Sept when letter was sent, not the 9th when it was received
Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879
valid acceptance despite his letter never arriving
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl 1982
“no universal rule can cover such cases” (modern methods of communication
Mondial Shipping & Chartering v Astarte Shipping Ltd 1996
if a message was left on an answer machine sent out of office hours acceptance would take place the next working day (likely to be fax & email too)
The Brimnes 1974
it would be the responsibility of the recipient to check for messages that had been delivered during office hours
