Offer Flashcards
Dickinson v Dodds [1876]
Mellish LJ: ‘once the person to whom the offer was made knows that the property has been sold to someone else, it is too late for him to accept the offer.’
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada [1986]
a ‘referential offer’ is invalid
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
the advertisement was an offer to the whole world; and (ii) a unilateral contract was made with those who met the condition ‘on the faith of the advertisement’
PSGB v Boots [1953]
displays and advertisements are not offers (merely invitations to treat). The customer who makes the offer when they present the goods for payment at the cash desk.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]
confirmed decision in Boots case
Entores v Miles Far Eastern Corp [1955]
Lord Denning’s three obiter examples re instantaneous communication (eg plane noise, telex running out of ink etc).
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments [1970]
M sent an acceptance of C’s tender to C’s surveyor rather than to the address in C’s tender
Gibson v Manchester CC [1979]
the council’s conduct indicated its intention to accept G’s offer, but it had not yet completed the acceptance by communicating it to G
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl [1983]
re instantaneous communication acceptance takes effect when and where it is actually brought to the attention of the offeror, unless one of the parties should reasonably have detected and rectified the communication failure
Tenax v The Brimnes [1975]
Court of Appeal held that if the telex was sent to a place of business during ordinary business hours, the revocation was effective when it was received on the telex machine, even if it remained unread
Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990]
Bingham LJ tender contracts contractual procedural understanding
Hyde v Wrench [1840]
a counter-offer which terminated the original offer, making it incapable of subsequent acceptance
Stevenson, Jacques v McLean [1880]
the court held that S merely made an inquiry, not a counter-offer extinguishing the offer, and so could bind M with his subsequent acceptance
Tinn v Hoffman [1873]
simultaneous offers, made in ignorance of each other, would not bind the parties
Shuey v US [1875]
revoking an offer in a newspaper advertisement can be effected by a similar advertisement even if unseen by the original offerees
R v Clarke [1927]
C’s claim for the reward was rejected because he admitted that, when giving the information, he had forgotten about the reward. C did not perform the act to get the reward
Felthouse v Bindley [1862]
court held against F, the uncle, because his offer to buy the horse could not be accepted by his nephew’s silence
