Offer&Acceptance Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Valid offer

A

clear, certain (Gibson v Manchester City Council; Storer v Manchester City Council) and communicated (Taylor v Laird)

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

General rule is that advertisement is merely an invitation to treat

A

Partridge v Crittenden

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

Exceptions to the general rule (advertisement)

A
  1. unilateral offer (Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co)

2. where advertiser is a manufacturer (Grainger & Son v Gough)

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

Unilateral offer

A

clear prescribed act performance of which constitutes acceptance (Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co)

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

Invitations to tender are merely an invitation to treat

A

Spencer v Harding - no contract, as the circular was simply a proclamation of intention and was thus an invitation to treat; the tenders were offers which the defendants were free to accept or reject

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

Exception to the general rule (Invitations to tender)

A

Harvela Investments v Royal Trust - where the invitation to tender expressly contains an undertaking to accept the highies or the lowest bid
Blackpoll & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council - if a bid is properly submitted in accordance with the terms of the invitation, it is promised that the bid will be considered. So it is an offer to consider the bids, not to accept them. An invitation to tender could give raise to a binding contractual obligation to consider tenders conforming to the conditions of tender, because 1) the tenders had been solicited by the Council from specified parties who were known to the Council; 2) there was an absolute deadline; 3) the Council had laid down absolute and non-negotiable conditions for submission.

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

Auction sales - the auctioneers request for bids is an invitation to treat

A

Payne v Cave - the bidder makes an offer which the auctioneer is then free to accept or reject. Acceptance of the bidder’s offer will be indicated by the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer. The bidder may revoke the offer any time before the hammer falls.

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

Auction sales without reserve (i.e. involving a promise to sell to the highest bidder and promising not to apply any reserve price)

A

Warlow v Harrison - where the sale is expressed to be without reserve there are in fact two contracts. 1) bilateral contract, which determines who is entitled to the goods. 2) unilateral contract based on the promise that the auction will be without reserve. If a reserve is applied and the goods are withdrawn from the sale there is a breach of a unilateral contract and the highest bona fide bidder is entitled to be compensated by the payment of damages.

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

Highest bidder is not however entitled to the goods since this is dictated by the bilateral contract for sale

A

Barry v Davies

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

Offer may be communicated to a particluar person, group of persons or to the whole world

A

Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

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

Counter offer

A

rejects original offer - Hyde v Wrench
Butler Machine v Ex-cell-o Corp - the buyers order was a counter offer which the sellers accepted by completing and returning the acknowledgment.

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

Request for information

A

Stevenson, Jacques v McLean - asks about ancillary matter due to the outfit, rather than essential term of the offer and the language is interrogatory

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

Offer may be revoked

A

before the acceptance - Payne v Cave; Routledge v Grant

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

Options

A

Dickinson v Dodds - where the offeree gives consideration to keep the offer open for a period, there is separate binding contract known as an option and revocation within the period will be in breach of contract

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

consideration

A

must be sufficient, not adequate - Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd

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

Where revocation is communicated by post

A

it takes effect from the moment it is received by the offerree and not from the time of posting - Byrne v Van Tienhoven

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

Revocation communicated by third party

A

Dickinson v Dodds

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

Revocation of unilateral offer

A

at any time prior to the completion of the required act - Great Northen Railway Company v Wtham

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

Revocation of unilateral offer: exception

A

where the offeree has partly performed the obligation and is willing and able to complete - Errington v Errington & Woods

20
Q

Communication of revocation in unilateral contracts made to the whole world

A

Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - offeror must take reasonable steps to bring revocation to the attention of all those who may have read the offer.
Shuey v United States - valid revocation made by publication

21
Q

Lapse of an offer

A
  1. passage of time -
    Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (acceptance should be made within reasonable period of time)
  2. death of the party
    Bradbury v Morgan - if the offeree is unaware of death of the offeror the offer would not be lapsed
    Duff’s Executors’ Case - the death of the offeree will cause the offer to lapse.
22
Q

Acceptance must be

A
  • mirror image (Hyde v Wrench)
  • made by the offeree (Boulton v Jones)
  • in response to the offer (R v Clarke; Williams v Caewardine)
  • communicated (Felthouse v Bindley)
23
Q

Acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer

A

Hyde v Wrench

24
Q

Silence can equal acceptance where the acceptance can be discerned from the conduct of the offeree

A

Taylor v Allon

25
Q

Acceptance by conduct

A

Intense Investments v Development Ventures

26
Q

acceptance by an authorised 3rd party

A

Powel v Lee

27
Q

Prescribed mode of acceptance

A

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments - where the offeror has prescribed a particular method of acceptance, but not in terms insisting that only acceptance in that mode shall be binding, that acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract.
Tinn v Hoffman - where acceptance was required by return of post, that doesn’t mean exclusively a reply by post but by any means not later than a letter written and sent by post

28
Q

Exceptions to the requirement of communication

A
  • unilateral offers - acceptance by Act (Carlill)
  • conduct of the offeror - if it is offeror’s fault that he didn’t receive it (Entores v Miles Far East Corp)
  • postal rule - posted acceptance is valid at the moment it was posted (Adams v Lindsell)
29
Q

Postal rule, letter of acceptance must be put into the hands of a postman who only authorised to deliver letters

A

Re London and Northern Bank ex p Jones

30
Q

Postal rule applies even where the letter is delayed or lost

A

Household Fire v Grant

31
Q

Postal rule is applicable only where it is reasonable to use the post

A

Henthorn v Fraser

Quenerduane v Cole - where prompt acceptance was required

32
Q

Postal rule will be ousted where it would lead to a manifest of inconvenience and absurdity

A

Holwell Securities v Hughes

33
Q

Postal rule will not be applied if the acceptance is incorrectly addressed

A

Getreide-Import v Contimar

34
Q

Avoiding the postal rule by requiring actual communication

A

Household Fire Insurance v Grant - “unswer by post is only bind if it reaches me”
Holwell Securities v Hughes - actual communication was required by the use of the phrase “by notice … to” (must receive the letter by specified time )

35
Q

Communication within office hours

A

The Brimnes - valid

36
Q

Communication outside office hours

A

Mondeal Shipping v Astarte Shipping - acceptance is received at the next business day

37
Q

Instantaneous communications

A

Entores v Miles Far East Corp - a person sending the message of acceptance knows or ought to know that it has not been received. where the message of acceptance is not received without any fault on the part of the offeror, no contract has been concluded. but if the offeree reasonably believes that he has communicated his acceptance but this is no so because of the fault of the offeror, then the offeror may be estoped from saying that he did not receive the acceptance

38
Q

E-mail is instantaneous mode of acceptance

A

Thomas v BPE

39
Q

presumption against an intention to create legal relations in social and domestic agreements

A

Balfour v Balfour

40
Q

The presumption will not be rebutted since there was no “mutuality in the arrangement between the parties”

A

Simplins v Pays

41
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists

A

THE SALE TOOK PLACE AT THE CASH DESK NOT AT THE SHELVES THEREFORE DISPLAY OF GOODS WAS MERELY AND INVITATION TO TREAT AND THERE WAS NO BREACH OF THE ACT.

42
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists

A

THE SALE TOOK PLACE AT THE CASH DESK NOT AT THE SHELVES THEREFORE DISPLAY OF GOODS WAS MERELY AND INVITATION TO TREAT AND THERE WAS NO BREACH OF THE ACT.

43
Q

Treitel’s critisism to the revocation of the offer by 3rd party (Dickinson v Dodds)

A

1) it leaves the offeree in a difficult position as he has to decide whether the source of information is reliable
2) suggests that a revocation should be communicated by the offeror only, to the offeree

44
Q

ICLR, resumption of ICLR in social (domestic) relation

A

(Balfour v Balfour), BUT rebuttable by looking at previous words / conduct (Peck v Lateau, Simpkins v Pays)

45
Q

Wording th other party in thу problem question who is entitled to damages only

A

These damages will place that party in the position they would have been had the contract been properly performed, that is, they will reflect their expectation interest (Robinson v Harman)