O&A main cases Flashcards
Gibson v Manchester CC
permissive language is not good enough to be an offer (“may be prepared to sell” has no basis)
- Denning suggests to abandon rigid O&A rules because it is outdated apparently
- CA overruled Denning (some scenarios where O&A is outdated but this is not one of them)
Gunthing v Lynn
“if lucky” is too vague
Fisher v Bell
offer takes place at the till - displaying the knife is not breaking the law (it is just an ITT)
Partridge v Critterdon
“25s each” = not an offer
Harvey v Facey
statement of fact is not an offer
Harris v Nicklinson
Advert for auction is an ITT
Payne v Cave
requesting for bids is an ITT, offers are made by the bidders
Warlow v Harrison
if no reserve, but refusal to sell, that is a breach of collateral contract between auctioneer and bider
Barry v Heathcote
confirmed Warlow v Harrison
Spencer v Harding
invitation to tendor is an ITT
Blackpool Flyde Aero Co v Blackpool BC
If tender gives rise to binding obligations, it is an offer
Harvela v Royal Trusts of Canada
referential bids are against the terms of the tender
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
intention to create legal relations shows it is not a mere puff
- put money in the bank
Taylor v Laird
must be communicated to the offeree
Gunthing v Lynn
offer must be certain = cannot be too vague
Routledge v Grant
offer can be withdrawn at any point before acceptance
Dickinson v Dodds
a reliable 3rd party can communicate withdreawal
Errington v Errington
cannot be withdrawn during performance of a unilateral offer
Day Morris v Voyce, Black J
“the final and unequivocal expression of assent to the terms of the offer”
Ramsgate Victoria v Montefiore
termination of offer if there has been a reasonable time lapse
Reynolds v Atherton
death is a reasonable termination of offer
Bradbury v Morgan
death can be a reasonable termination of offer unless offeree is ignorant of death - if so, acceptance can still occur
Hyde v Wench
counter offer extinguishes original offer
Stevenson Jackques v Mclean
request for further information is not a counter offer and must be replied to
Gibbons v Proctor
rewards = offer must be on your mind
Williams v Cowardine
rewards = offer must be A REASON even if you have other motives
R v Clarke
Australian case decided offer must be the MAIN REASON
Yates v Pulleyn
acceptance can be in any form unless specified
Felthouse v Brindley
acceptance by silence is not acceptable
Adams v Lindsell
1st established postal rule - acceptance takes place as soon as the letter has been posted
Household Fire Carriages v Grant
doubted the postal rule - may manifest disadvantage (dissenting judgement though, by Bramwell J)
majority - may cause hardship sometimes, if it never arrives (Thesiger says that once there is a post it is a meeting of the minds) - this is dumb what about where policy takes over logic in Felthouse
Hughes v Howell Securities
you can opt out of postal rule: “notice in writing” means it does not apply
Entores v Miles Far East
postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communciations
Brinkibon v Stahag- Stahl
telex received out of office hours is only accepted once it is opened (or when it is office hours again if this is earlier)
