I. AGREEMENT: OFFER & ACCEPTANCE, CERTAINTY & INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS Flashcards
What were the facts in PGSB v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401?
Self-service shop, customers fill baskets with desired items then bring to till to pay; till had cashier, registered pharmacist supervising chemists’ section w/authority to prevent removal of any drug from shop.
What legal principle did PGSB PGSB v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 create?
Issue was PGSB said that sale didn’t occur in supervision of pharmacist, required by statute (Pharmacy and Poisons Act1933).
Held that the contract was complete when the customer’s offer to buy was accepted by the relevant employee; displaying of items was not an offer to sell, as customers would then be bound to buying that item and wouldn’t be able to change their mind.
What were the facts in Gibson v Manchester CC [1979] 1 WLR 294?
D council had policy of selling council houses to tenants. C was one, applied for details of house he was renting and applicable mortgage terms through printed form supplied by D. City council treasurer responded saying “the [council] may be prepared to sell…” but made it clear it wasn’t a firm offer of mortgage. Invited C to apply formally through enclosed form. He did, + returned it, but didn’t include price he wanted to pay. Political control of council shifts to Labour, suspended, eradicated policy unless binding contract already in place. Refused to sell to P.
What legal principle did Gibson v Manchester CC [1979] 1 WLR 294 create?
D’s appeal at HL allowed. C relied on his return of the form in response to the treasurer as acceptance of their offer to sell, but there was no such offer. Even if no change in political control, policy mandated that all agreements for sale include all conditions, which they weren’t here.
Lord Edmund-Davies: “There was at best no more than an invitation by the corporation to tenants to apply to be allowed to purchase freeholds…”
What were the facts in Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 3 All ER 25?
D (LA) had given C (flight club) a concession to run pleasure flights from the airport. Renewal time- D send tender invite to C + 6 other companies w/clause- late tenders wouldn’t be considered. Town clerk opened letterbox late- C’s tender marked late, not considered, D accepts lower offer. C brought action for negligence + breach of contract, succeeded at initial court.
What legal principle did Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC [1990] 3 All ER 25 create?
Lord Bingham: “…if [C] submits a conforming tender before the deadline he is entitled, not as a matter of mere expectation but of contractual right, to be sure that his tender will after the deadline be considered as in conjunction with all other conforming ender or at least that his tender will be considered if others are.”
So, even if D chose to reject all of the tenders, so long as they considered one they would be bound to consider them all- applied Carbolic Smoke Ball- “How would an ordinary person reading this document construe it?”
3 things an implied contract such as this one must have: intention to create contractual relations + agreed relationship + must be able to answer Hispanica v Vencedora question: “What was the mechanism for offer and acceptance?”
What were the facts in Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869?
P negotiated w/nephew to buy horse but disagreed about price. P wrote to N w/offer to split difference + stated that if N didn’t reply he would assume horse was his. N did not reply, instructed D auctioneer to remove horse from sale, D mistakenly sold it, P sues for conversion.
What legal principle did Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 create?
Held that there was no valid contract because silence can’t amount to an acceptance/.
What were the facts in Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216?
D applied to buy shares in P’s company, who allotted the shares to D and sent them to him by post. D never receives letter. P’s company is liquidated, requests sum from D, D refuses saying he was never a shareholder.
What legal principle did Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216 create?
Majority ruled in P’s favour. While usually communication of acceptance is a mandatory basis for a contract, there is a rule for contracts conducted via post. James L.J. in Harris’ Case: “…the posting of the letter of acceptance is the completion of the contract. Neither party can afterwards escape from it.”
Justification for postal rule:
- Post office is common agent for both sides- risk of mistake for both, blame can’t fall equally so who should take the risk? Here it falls on offeror
- Not inconvenient, offeror can simply require communication of acceptance in contract
- Gen. rule would create delay, possibility of fraud.
What were the facts in Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344?
D wrote to P offering 1k boxes of tin plates for sale. D based in Cardiff, P in NY- letters took 10-11 days delivery. P received letter on Oct 11, accepted it that day by telegram and then letter on Oct 15. But Oct 8 D sent letter w/drawing offer, P didn’t receive until Oct 20. P claimed damages for non-delivery.
What legal principle did Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344 create?
W/drawal was inoperative. Contract made when P accepted first offer, D had to pay P’s costs.
What were the facts in Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327?
P = London-based company. Sent D (based in Amsterdam but US company w/worldwide branches) offer to buy 100 tons of copper cathodes from D. Offer communicated by Telex, form of instant comms. D sent acceptance by Telex. Contract not fulfilled, P tried to sue D under English Law.
Key question was when was the contract accepted? If when D sent acceptance, damages under Dutch law. If when P received acceptance, damages under English Law.
What legal principle did Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327 create?
Contract by Telex completed when acceptance was received. Postal rule N/A to instant comms, so contract created in London. General rule of acceptance thus applies to all forms of instant comms, but has to be clear that this is the mode of acceptance prior to creation of contract.
What were the facts in Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155?
D gave option to P to buy his house for £45k, exercisable “by notice in writing w/in 6 months”. P posts letter 5 days b4 deadline to D’s solicitors, who called D telling him to expect copy of letter to be sent to him. But D had been planning to go to Ireland that evening and did so; found no letter on return. P claimed specific performance of contract when D refused to complete sale.
What legal principle did Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 create?
Exception to the postal rule whereby the contract expressly stipulates that the delivery of the contract alone is not sufficient; here the contract stipulated “by notice in writing w/in 6 months.”
What were the facts in Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666?
P = D’s informal coal supplier for a few years. Decided it would be best for a formal, written contract. D made draft, sent to P for review. Sent back to D w/minor amendments and filled in blanks. D filed it but never communicated acceptance to P. Business dealings continued. Major issues arose, P argued no formal contract had been established.
What legal principle did Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666 create?
The amended draft = counter-offer, acceptance was the parties’ conduct i.e. the fact they went on with their business dealings; lack of communication of acceptance irrelevant whereby conduct w/o objections was sufficient.
What legal principle did Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Comm. & Gen. Investments [1970] 1 WLR 242 create?
Where an offer states a method of acceptance without insisting that it is binding, acceptance by any other method that is no less advantageous is effective.
What were the facts in Gibbons v Proctor (1891) 64 LT 594?
Reward of £25 for info leading to arrest of a criminal, ad stipulated info must be given to Superintendent. PO asked colleague to do so when he was unaware of the offer. Then became aware before info reached Superintendent + claimed reward
