Agreement Flashcards
Trietel’s definition of an offer
An expression of willingness to contract on specified terms made with the intention that it is to be come legally binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed
Gibson v MCC
Not sufficiently CPU to be offer
Storer v MCC
Sufficiently CPU to be offer
ITT
‘Uncertain first steps in neogitaion’
Fisher v Bell
Display of goods is ITT
Partridge v Crittenden
Adverts are ITT if not sufficiently certain
Grainger v Gough
Exception where advert is an offer if the advertiser has unlimited access to the offer product
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball
Unilateral offer as advert was certain and evidenced intention by putting money in bank account
Spencer v Harding
ITTender are not offers
Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool Council
Invitation to tender contained a condition to consider the offer. Not considered so breach of contract
Payne v Cave (Auctions)
Auctioneers request for bids is an ITTender
Warlow v Harrison
Obligation to accept the highest bid in an auction
Taylor v Laird
Offer must be communicated
3 methods of termination of offer
Rejection, revocation, lapse
Hyde v Wrench
- Must be mirror image acceptance
- Counter offer kills an offer
Stevenson, Jacques + CO v McLean
Request for information is not a counter offer and does not kill the offer
Payne v Cave (withdrawal)
If offer withdrawn before acceptance then the offer is no longer open
Routledge v Grant
If time limit set offeror free to revoke any time before acceptance
Dickinson v Dodds
- 3rd party revocation
- Where consideration is made to keep offer open this is an option contract
- Parties can set deadline for end of offer being open
Trietel’s criticism of the rule in Dickinson v Dodds
3rd party revocation places offerree in a difficult position as the offerree does not know whether the 3rd party is a valid party to revoke the offer
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
- Revocation must be communicated
- Revocation only valid upon receipt, postal rule does not apply
Great Northen Rail
General rule; Unilateral offer can be revoked anytime before complete performance
Exception; Where the party is able and willing to complete performance then the revocation is not valid
Errington v Errington + Woods
Where party capable and willing to complete performance unilateral offer cannot be revoked
Ball
If unilateral offer made to whole world must be revoked to whole world
Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore
An offer will laps if not accepted in a reasonable time - 6+ months
Bradbury v Morgan
Death causes an offer to lapse
Financings v Stimson
Offer lapsed as car no longer in condition it was offered in
Smith v Hughes
Would the reasonable man judge he was assenting to the terms of the contract
Hartogg v Colin Shields
Cannot snatch at a bargain
Hyde v Wrench
Acceptance must be a mirror image of offer
Boulton v Jones
Acceptance must be made in response to the offer
R v Clarke c/f Williams v Carwadine
Acceptance must be made in knowledge of offer.
Felthouse v Bindely
Silence does not constitute acceptance
Taylor v Allen
Conduct can amount to acceptance
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Conduct rarely amounts to acceptance. Acceptance through conduct only possible where goods are delivered
Powell v Lee
Acceptance through a 3rd party is valid (though could apply Treitel’s criticism here as well)
Entores v Miles
- Instantaneous communication acceptance is valid upon receipt.
- Acceptance is not valid if the offerree is at fault and not appropriately communicated
- Acceptance is valid where offerree correctly communicates acceptance but not recieved due to fault of offeror
Brimnes
Where acceptance received by machine it is valid when received if received in office hours
Thomas v BPE
No set measure of office hours. Judged on a case by case basis.
Adams v Linsell
Postal rule - Acceptance valid upon proper postage
Re London + Northern Bank ex p Jones
Letter must be properly posted. Handed to postman who was not authorised to accept post, so not properly posted
Household Fire v Grant
If letter destroyed then does not affect the postal rule
Henthorn v Fraser
Postal rule must be in reasonable contemplation of both parties
Getreide-import v Contimer
Misadressing letter has effect of only making the letter valid upon arrival
Ousting of postal rule
Household Fire v Grant establishes ousting of postal rule. Holwell Securities v Hughes - Postal rule ousted by express wording ‘by notice to’
Can a postal acceptance be accepted?
Dunmore v Alexander - Yes
Thomson v James - No
Wenkheim v Ardnt - Generally accepted cannot be revoked
Smith & Hogan/Hudson - Issue of detriment to offeror
Manchester Diocesan
If a prescribed mode of acceptance is stated it is only exclusive if very expressly stated. Words such as must are NOT sufficient. Needs to be something like ‘acceptance by carrier pigeon only’
Tinn v Hoffman
If prescribed mode of acceptance not exclusive then equally expeditious modes of communication will suffice
Yates v Pulleyn
Where a prescribed mode of acceptance is stated for the benefit of the offerree it can be ignored
ICLR
A combination of express wording and circumstance
Well Barn v Backhouse
ICLRv presumed in a commercial situation
Bunn & Bunn v Rees & Parker
ICLR must be expressly and carefully opted out of in a commercial situation
Textile v M&S
Objective assessment of circumstances can mean ICLR is rebutted or vice versa
Licences v Lawson
Statement made in jest will not create ICLR
Balfour v Balfour
Presumption that no ICLR in a domestic situation
Merit v Merit
ICLR allowed in separated couple
Peck v Lateau
ICLR can be implied from previous dealings
Ecles v Byrand and Pollock
Pre contractual negotiations are not subject to ICLR
Watford AFC v Aylesbury
Minor only bound by contract if it is for their benefit. Judged not to have capacity to contract otherwise
Dunlop v Selfridge as per Pollok
Future consideration is good consideration
Eastwood v Kenyon
General rule; past consideration is bad consideration
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long
Past consideration is bad consideration unless;
- At promisors request
- Act performed at expectation of reward
Chapel v Nestle
Consideration need not be adequate
White v Bluett
Consideration must be sufficient
Stilk v Myrick
Consideration for a previous obligation is not good consideration
Hartley v Ponsonby
Where condieration is made for a changed obligation this is good consideration
Williams v Roffey
Where contract confers collateral benefit it is good consideration
Scotson v Pegg
Pre-existing obligation to 3rd party is good consideration as it gives double liability
