O&A main cases

Question 1

Gibson v Manchester CC

Answer 1

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• Denning suggests to abandon rigid O&A rules because it is outdated apparently
• CA overruled Denning (some scenarios where O&A is outdated but this is not one of them)

Question 2

Gunthing v Lynn

Answer 2

“if lucky” is too vague

Question 3

Fisher v Bell

Answer 3

offer takes place at the till - displaying the knife is not breaking the law (it is just an ITT)

Question 4

Partridge v Critterdon

Answer 4

“25s each” = not an offer

Question 5

Harvey v Facey

Answer 5

statement of fact is not an offer

Question 6

Harris v Nicklinson

Answer 6

Advert for auction is an ITT

Question 7

Payne v Cave

Answer 7

requesting for bids is an ITT, offers are made by the bidders

Question 8

Warlow v Harrison

Answer 8

if no reserve, but refusal to sell, that is a breach of collateral contract between auctioneer and bider

Question 9

Barry v Heathcote

Answer 9

confirmed Warlow v Harrison

Question 10

Spencer v Harding

Answer 10

invitation to tendor is an ITT

Question 11

Blackpool Flyde Aero Co v Blackpool BC

Answer 11

If tender gives rise to binding obligations, it is an offer

Question 12

Harvela v Royal Trusts of Canada

Answer 12

referential bids are against the terms of the tender

Question 13

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Answer 13

intention to create legal relations shows it is not a mere puff
- put money in the bank

Question 14

Taylor v Laird

Answer 14

must be communicated to the offeree

Question 15

Gunthing v Lynn

Answer 15

offer must be certain = cannot be too vague

Question 16

Routledge v Grant

Answer 16

offer can be withdrawn at any point before acceptance

Question 17

Dickinson v Dodds

Answer 17

a reliable 3rd party can communicate withdreawal

Question 18

Errington v Errington

Answer 18

cannot be withdrawn during performance of a unilateral offer

Question 19

Day Morris v Voyce, Black J

Answer 19

“the final and unequivocal expression of assent to the terms of the offer”

Question 20

Ramsgate Victoria v Montefiore

Answer 20

termination of offer if there has been a reasonable time lapse

Question 21

Reynolds v Atherton

Answer 21

death is a reasonable termination of offer

Question 22

Bradbury v Morgan

Answer 22

death can be a reasonable termination of offer unless offeree is ignorant of death - if so, acceptance can still occur

Question 23

Hyde v Wench

Answer 23

counter offer extinguishes original offer

Question 24

Stevenson Jackques v Mclean

Answer 24

request for further information is not a counter offer and must be replied to

Question 25

Gibbons v Proctor

Answer 25

rewards = offer must be on your mind

Question 26

Williams v Cowardine

Answer 26

rewards = offer must be A REASON even if you have other motives

Question 27

R v Clarke

Answer 27

Australian case decided offer must be the MAIN REASON

Question 28

Yates v Pulleyn

Answer 28

acceptance can be in any form unless specified

Question 29

Felthouse v Brindley

Answer 29

acceptance by silence is not acceptable

Question 30

Adams v Lindsell

Answer 30

1st established postal rule - acceptance takes place as soon as the letter has been posted

Question 31

Household Fire Carriages v Grant

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Hughes v Howell Securities

Answer 32

you can opt out of postal rule: “notice in writing” means it does not apply

Question 33

Entores v Miles Far East

Answer 33

postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communciations

Question 34

Brinkibon v Stahag- Stahl

Answer 34

telex received out of office hours is only accepted once it is opened (or when it is office hours again if this is earlier)