Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract > Offer/ acceptance > Flashcards

Offer/ acceptance Flashcards

1
Q

Law is concerned with objective appearance rather than actual fact of agreement

A

Smith v Hughes, Rose v Pim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

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

A

Smith v Hughes (old/ new oats)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Contract is still valid even where one party knows the other is making a mistake

A

Rose v Pim (feveroles/ beans)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Party will not be bound if the other is aware he has made a mistake about a fundamental term of the contract

A

Hartog (hare-skins), Digilandmall.com

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

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

A

Hartog, Digilandmall.com

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Invitation to treat is an invitation to the other party to make an offer

A

Photolibrary Group (test is objective)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Display of price marked goods in shop windows are an invitation which buyer may reject

A

Fisher v Bell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Display of price marked goods on shelves in a shop are invitation to treat even where there is self-service

A

Boots

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

General rule on display of goods is displaced where the nature of the display/ circumstances suggest an intention to be bound

A

Ex p Johnson (“we will beat any TV price by £20 on the spot”); Lefkowitz (“9am sharp, fur coats for $1”)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

There may be offer/ acceptance but no invitation to treat

A

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, Chapelton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Adverts are usually not held to be offers, as they may lead to further bargaining

A

Patridge v Crittenden

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Circulating a price list to potential customers is an invitation to treat

A

Grainger & Sons (if viewed as an offer, merchants would be bound to supply an unlimited amount of stock)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Where a promise is made conditional on the performance of an act (unilateral contract), the advert will be an offer

A

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Bowerman v ABTA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Offer/ acceptance rules for websites likely to be the same for display of goods

A

Digilandmall.com: potential range of liability may increase courts’ reluctance to conclude an offer has been made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Intention of sale is not lightly imputed to the owner of land

A

Harvey v Facey, Clifton v Palumbo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In sales of land, important to construe the whole document: cannot rely on either the word offer or the inclusion of a price

A

Clifton v Palumbo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

In sales of land, there is no reason to depart from conventional rules of contractual construction

A

Gibson v Manchester CC (contra Denning LJ: no need for strict offer/ acceptance)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

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

A

Payne v Cave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Advert for an auction of sale without reserve is an offer accepted by the making of the highest bona fide bid

A

Warlow v Harrison (cf. Harris v Nickerson) confirmed in Barry v Davies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Advert for normal auction not a unilateral contract

A

Harris v Nickerson (“without reserve” indicates that there could only be one highest bidder - reduces the scope for liability)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Statement that goods are to be sold by tender or inviting bids is not normally an offer

A

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

22
Q

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)

A

Blackpool and Fylde Aeroclub (Bingham LJ)

23
Q

Where tenders stipulate they will accept the highest bid, the invitation is a unilateral contract, with acceptance the submission of the highest bid

A

Harvela v Royal Trusts of Canada

24
Q

Where the offer responds with a proposal for different terms, the original offer will be terminated

A

Hyde v Wrench

25
Q

A mere inquiry does not constitute a counter-offer

A

Stevenson v McLean (NB: context specific)

26
Q

The latest shot in the battle of the forms tends to prevail

A

Arthur Crutchley

27
Q

Battle of the forms will not operate where the conditions are so materially different that it could not be construed as acceptance

A

Butler Machine Tools

28
Q

An offer can be withdrawn up to the moment it is accepted

A

Routledge v Grant

29
Q

An offer may not be withdrawn following the exchange of consideration

A

Mountford v Scott

30
Q

Withdrawal must be communicated to the offeree

A

Byrne v Tienhoven

31
Q

Communication of withdrawal does not need to be formal or direct

A

Dickinson v Dodds (where P is aware that the offer has changed (via a third party), the offer is effectively withdrawn: P is unable to accept an offer which he knows does not match the other’s true intentions)

32
Q

Not necessary for there to be communication of withdrawal in a unilateral contract

A

Shuey v US

33
Q

An offer that is not limited in duration will lapse after the expiration of a reasonable time

A

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel (5 months); see Manchester Diocesan Council

34
Q

The offeree cannot accept the offer if he is not aware of it

A

Tinn v Hoffman (exchange of offers via post)

35
Q

Motive for accepting the offer is irrelevant, as long as there is knowledge of it

A

Williams v Cawardine

36
Q

Unilateral offers: strict view is that acceptance only takes place when the condition is fully performed

A

Luxor v Cooper

37
Q

Unilateral offers: offeror may lose his entitlement to withdraw the offer once performance has begun

A

Errington v Errington, confirmed Daulia v Four Millbank

38
Q

Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror and is deemed effective from the moment of communication

A

Entores v Miles

39
Q

Where the offeree is not aware that the message of acceptance has been disrupted but this is the fault of the offeror, there may still be a contract

A

The Brimnes (failure to pick up telex message during office hours)

40
Q

The offeror may prescribe the form of acceptance

A

Eliason v Henshaw (“by return of wagon”)

41
Q

In unilateral contracts, it is only necessary for the offeree to follow the indicated method of acceptance

A

Carlill

42
Q

There may be acceptance by conduct in bilateral contracts if there is an “extraneous act which clenches the matter)

A

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway

43
Q

Incomplete negotiations can be overtaken by subsequent conduct

A

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (cf. Cleveland Bridge: parties who choose to act as if they have a contract while still negotiating are taking a risk: Goff J)

44
Q

Silence does not constitute acceptance, even when the offeror prescribes it to be acceptable

A

Felthouse v Bindley

45
Q

Inherent ambiguity in silence: could mean parties have forgotten about it, or hoping that it will be dropped or the negligence of staff

A

Leonidas D (Goff LJ)

46
Q

A failure to reject an offer may in some circumstances be explicable only as an acceptance

A

Vitol SA (see also Selectmove)

47
Q

A posted letter of acceptance takes effect from the moment it is posted

A

Henthorn v Fraser

48
Q

Postal rule does not apply when the express or implied terms of the offer specify that the acceptance must reach the offeror

A

Holwell Securities

49
Q

Postal rule does not operate where its exercise would produce manifest absurdity or inconvenience

A

Holwell Securities (applying Bramwell B’s dissent in Hentorn)

50
Q

Postal rule does not apply where the letter has been misdirected

A

Korbetis v Transgrain (wrong dialling code for fax)

51
Q

Unclear whether acceptance can be revoked by the offeree after posting

A

Trietel: would be unfair to the offeror; Bramwell B in Henton: would be “alarming” if postal rule were irrevocable

Contract (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions