Evaluation

Question 1

What is an advantage of an offer?

Answer 1

Clearly established rules and principles

Question 2

How can the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat have both advantages and disadvantages?

Answer 2

It is good that they are different but the distinction can be confusing for the public

Question 3

How are goods on a shelf confusing when it comes to offer and ITT?

Answer 3

People think goods on a shelf are an offer but there an invitation to treat

Question 4

Why is it beneficial that goods on a shelf are classified as an invitation to treat?

Answer 4

If they where an offer people could put things in their basket then put them back and they’d be in breach of contract.

Question 5

What is bad about the duration of an offer?

Case example?

Answer 5

How long an offer remains open can be confusing

Deciding when is reasonable unclear

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire

Question 6

What is the problem with a counter offer rejecting the original offer?

Answer 6

Could be trying to find info - Stevenson v Mclean
Could change terms - Hyde v Wrench

Question 7

What are two issues with revocation of an offer being accepted?

Answer 7

Byrne v Van Tien Hoven ineffective
Subjective who a reliable third party is if they communicate revocation

Question 8

What is the issue with the postal rule?

Answer 8

Only applies to accepting not terminating offer

Question 9

What are two potential reforms for offer?

Answer 9

ITT treated as offer - cause problems/fraud
Place onus on offeror to inform offeree of revocation

Question 10

Can a party be in a contract without knowing it because of the postal rule?

Yes/No Question

Answer 10

Yes

Question 11

What is the issue with the postal rule when it comes to revocation?

Answer 11

Hard to know if revocation still possible

Question 12

Can the postal rule be excluded, what is the problem with this?

Answer 12

Could be excluded by putting a time limit on acceptance

Question 13

Is the postal rule outdated?

Answer 13

Yes

Not in tune with current speed of business

Question 14

Is there a clear authority on overtaking posted acceptance with revocation sent by a faster means?

Yes/No Question

Answer 14

No

Question 15

Are the rules of offer and acceptance to formal?

Answer 15

Yes

Don’t reflect current business practice

Question 16

What are three issues with acceptance by instant communications?

Answer 16

• Not clear when other party has recieved
• Sound business practice unclear
• Case law covers telex not current instant messaging

Question 17

Should the postal rule be abolished?

Answer 17

Could be abolished unless explicitly adopted by parties

Question 18

Should the courts standardise business hours for communications?

Answer 18

Could standardise hours and let parties exclude them

Question 19

How would codifiying rules on acceptance help?

Answer 19

Would give more clarity

Question 20

Could the UK adopt EU contract law as a reform?

Answer 20

Yes would standerdise

Question 21

Are the invitation to treat rules clearly defined?

Answer 21

No

Can be confusion between ITT and offer and whether online or in shop

Question 22

Are the circumstances that the postal rule applies clearly defined?

Answer 22

• Not always as can be excluded
• Unlcear if telex or email
• If posted inproperly then doesnt apply

Question 23

Does the postal rule need reform?

Answer 23

Yes, should be codified to give clarity

Question 24

What is the issue with acceptance of unilateral contracts?

Answer 24

Acceptance does not have to be communicated to the offeree

Shouldn’t be changed as would be unfair on those performing

Question 25

Are the circumstances where performace will be accepted sufficiently clear? | Yes/No Question

Answer 25

No

Question 26

Are the differences between a counter offer and mere inquiry defined?

Answer 26

Not sufficintly clear

Question 27

What issues does the sound business practice rule lead to? | What is a case example of this?

Answer 27

Implementation of the rule may vary from judge to judge ## Footnote Thomas v BPE Solicitors - acceptance effecitve even though sent email at 6pm on friday

Question 28

Does the rule that silence doesn't amount to acceptance always reflect the parties intention?

Answer 28

No, parties could intend that silence is acceptance

Question 29

Is the rule that you can accept by different means than specified as long as it doesn't disadvantage offeror fair?

Answer 29

Not completely as leaves lots of discretion to judge | Undemocratic/inconsistant

Question 30

What two arguments support the current revocation rules?

Answer 30

* Clear offer can only be revoked before acceptance, gives both sides certainty. * Reliable third party can tell offeree of revocation, prevents fraud.

Question 31

Three reforms for revocation law?

Answer 31

1. Remove postal rule as no longer relevant 2. More definate rule then 'sound business dealings' e.g state hours of communication 3. Enforce definate promise to not revoke

Question 32

Are the rules on sufficiency of consideraton consistant?

Answer 32

Some decisions policy driven Chapel v Nestle can manipulate to make consideration sufficient

Question 33

Are the rules surrounding prexisting obligstion that amounts to consideration consistant?

Answer 33

Clear difference between Stilk v Myrick and Hartly v Ponsonby but can be grey areas, where is line drawn

Question 34

What is an issue with past consideration?

Answer 34

Past consideration can be allowed if contemplation of reward. Hard to prove.

Question 35

Can consideration be 'invented' by the courts? | What is a case example?

Answer 35

Sometimes | Chappell v Nestle

Question 36

What could a radical reform for consideraton be?

Answer 36

To abandon concept of consideration | Would lead to gifts being legally actionable

Question 37

When was the last time the law on consideration was subject to proposals for reform?

Answer 37

1937

Question 38

What is the problem with consideration needing to be real but not having to be adequate?

Answer 38

Pragmatic response hard to enforce

Question 39

Is there a difference between White v Bluett and Hamer v Sidway?

Answer 39

Bluett: no legal right given up = no consideration Hamer: legal rights given up = valid consideration | Very small difference

Question 40

Whats a case example of where the courts have found consideration for parties who are part of the state?

Answer 40

Glasbrook v Glamorgan | Was held police went beyond existing duty

Question 41

In the case of Ward v Bytham do judges find things of value if they want to enforce something?

Answer 41

It can be considered this way as said a mother isnt obligated to keep a child happy

Question 42

What case relates to how part payment of a debt rules can deal with particular policy considerations?

Answer 42

Re Selectmove | No new consideration with part payment of debt so no good consideration ## Footnote Was being paid to HMRC (Government Entity)

Question 43

What are the two theories of consideration?

Answer 43

**Atiyah** - consideration is 'good reason' for enforcment **Treitel** - benefit/detriment analysis of consideration

Question 44

What are two possible reforms for consideration?

Answer 44

1. Ensure every contract has fair value 2. Abolish rule that past consideration is no consideration

Question 45

What are two problems with making every contract fair value?

Answer 45

* Hard to implement unless state owned businesses * Would open floodgates

Question 46

Does the presumption that domestic cases do not have ITFLR overlap with consideration?

Answer 46

It does as surely if both sides give good consideration then there is intent

Question 47

Are the rules on domestic agreements outdated?

Answer 47

Yes based on sexist views and whether people are married and live together

Question 48

Why is the presumtion of no intention in domestic cases sometimes a benefit?

Answer 48

Can protect parties who genuinly had no intetion Stops trivial cases

Question 49

Can companies avoid intent to form legal realtions by excluding it through words? | What is a benefit of this?

Answer 49

Sometimes they are able which can offer protection

Question 50

What is the issue with a company excluding intention to form legal relations?

Answer 50

Economically dominant firms could avoid liability

Question 51

What is a case example of where a firm avoided liability by excluding legal relations?

Answer 51

Jones v Vernon Pools | Explicity stated not legally binding on document