Offer/ acceptance Flashcards
Law is concerned with objective appearance rather than actual fact of agreement
Smith v Hughes, Rose v Pim
Party is bound if his words/ conduct are such to induce a reasonable person to believe that he intends to be bound, even though he has no intention
Smith v Hughes (old/ new oats)
Contract is still valid even where one party knows the other is making a mistake
Rose v Pim (feveroles/ beans)
Party will not be bound if the other is aware he has made a mistake about a fundamental term of the contract
Hartog (hare-skins), Digilandmall.com
Buyers are not disentitled by their realisation of the mistake, but because a reasonable person in their position would realise a mistake had been made
Hartog, Digilandmall.com
Invitation to treat is an invitation to the other party to make an offer
Photolibrary Group (test is objective)
Display of price marked goods in shop windows are an invitation which buyer may reject
Fisher v Bell
Display of price marked goods on shelves in a shop are invitation to treat even where there is self-service
Boots
General rule on display of goods is displaced where the nature of the display/ circumstances suggest an intention to be bound
Ex p Johnson (“we will beat any TV price by £20 on the spot”); Lefkowitz (“9am sharp, fur coats for $1”)
There may be offer/ acceptance but no invitation to treat
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, Chapelton
Adverts are usually not held to be offers, as they may lead to further bargaining
Patridge v Crittenden
Circulating a price list to potential customers is an invitation to treat
Grainger & Sons (if viewed as an offer, merchants would be bound to supply an unlimited amount of stock)
Where a promise is made conditional on the performance of an act (unilateral contract), the advert will be an offer
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Bowerman v ABTA
Offer/ acceptance rules for websites likely to be the same for display of goods
Digilandmall.com: potential range of liability may increase courts’ reluctance to conclude an offer has been made
Intention of sale is not lightly imputed to the owner of land
Harvey v Facey, Clifton v Palumbo
In sales of land, important to construe the whole document: cannot rely on either the word offer or the inclusion of a price
Clifton v Palumbo
In sales of land, there is no reason to depart from conventional rules of contractual construction
Gibson v Manchester CC (contra Denning LJ: no need for strict offer/ acceptance)
Auctions: general rule is an offer is made by a bidder and accepted by the fall of the hammer; offers lapse as soon as there is a higher price
Payne v Cave
Advert for an auction of sale without reserve is an offer accepted by the making of the highest bona fide bid
Warlow v Harrison (cf. Harris v Nickerson) confirmed in Barry v Davies
Advert for normal auction not a unilateral contract
Harris v Nickerson (“without reserve” indicates that there could only be one highest bidder - reduces the scope for liability)
Statement that goods are to be sold by tender or inviting bids is not normally an offer
Spencer v Harding (circular amounted to nothing more than “a mere proclamation that the defendants are ready to chaffer for the sale of goods” - Willes J)
But had the appearance of being a means to achieve the highest price: sale on a certain date/ stipulation for cash/ sealed bids
Where tenders are solicited from selected parties known to the invitor and the invitation prescribes a clear, orderly and familiar procedure, it can be treated as an offer (unilateral contract)
Blackpool and Fylde Aeroclub (Bingham LJ)
Where tenders stipulate they will accept the highest bid, the invitation is a unilateral contract, with acceptance the submission of the highest bid
Harvela v Royal Trusts of Canada
Where the offer responds with a proposal for different terms, the original offer will be terminated
Hyde v Wrench
