Offer and Acceptance Flashcards
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Vending machines are not ITT - the terms on ticket come after the offer has been accepted as the acceptee cannot refuse them - therefore unincorporated
Fisher v Bell
Distinction between an offer and an ITT
Chapelton
This was actually an offer - even though enough stages for an ITT - the reason being that otherwise the C could sit there for an hour without paying
Carlill
Unilateral - performance of a specific action, offer is usually money - contrasted with bilateral contracts, the two parties agree to be bound; not agreement here
Harvey v Facey
NB the difference with land - not so readily traded - communication RE the price would seem to be an offer (why else communicate it) but this was not construed as such
Gibson v Manc CC
Lord Denning was criticised - this was an ITT (unlike Denning’s broad, contextual construction at CA) - this shows the friction between the narrow and broad constructions - it was an ITT because of ‘may be prepared to’
Payne v Cave
Auction - similar to ITT - the placing of the bid is the offer and the fall of the hammer is the acceptance
Warlow v Harrison
An auctioneer who refused to sell a horse which was at auction ‘without reserve’ meant that the auctioneer could be sued
Spencer v Harding
Tender - a circular could not be construed as an offer, it was a mere proclamation of their willingness to sell
Blackpool and Fylde Aeroclub
Tender - this was unilateral because the council had failed to take into account C’s tender like they had promised to do - the council were therefore liable for breach
Hyde v Wrench
Counter-offer - offered to pay 950 instead of 1000 - this would seem to be effectively the same price prima facie, but all the D had to do was write back to accept, which he didn’t
Stevenson v McLean
NOT Counter-Offer - this was merely a request for more information - be careful to distinguish between these and Hyde v Wrench
BRS v Arthur Crutchley
Battle of the forms - here the delivery note was an offer, which the stamp of alternative terms was a counter-offer and the delivery driver accepted by conduct
Routledge v Grant
The C has a right to withdraw just as the D has a right to withdraw - providing this has been done before acceptance there is no contract - even with a duration e.g. 6 weeks
Mountford v Scott
Option - if consideration has been given to keep an offer open, even if it is nominal, then the offeror cannot withdraw the offer during this time
Byrne & Co
The offeree had accepted before it was withdrawn - postal rule
Shuey v US
RE Unilateral withdrawal - the offeror must sufficiently publicise the withdrawal of the offer even if C himself does not hear of it
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel
Lapse of an offer - too long
Williams v Cawardine
Knowledge of the offer is deduced from the circumstances and the motivation for accepting is irrelevant
Tinn v Hoffman
Cross offers cannot form a contract; there needs to be acceptance of one
R v Clarke
Here, if the C does not know of the true nature of the offer e.g. to evade criminal charges and get money (he knew only of former) then he can gain what he knew of
Luxor v Cooper
Failure to accept a unilateral offer - they had to find someone to BUY the property, which they didn’t because the Ds found someone elsewhere - no acceptance
Errington v Errington
Acceptance of a unilateral offer - once performance has begun, the offer cannot be withdrawn, even if it has not been fully completed
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Acceptance by conduct: receiving a counter-offer and placing in a drawer was considered to be acceptance
British Steel Corp. v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co.
No contract had come into being as no agreement had been reached, however, the Cs succeeded on a quantum merit claim
Felthouse v Bindley
Silence is not acceptance
Re Selectmove
Here, silence was acceptance - where an offeree himself indicates that an offer is to be deemed as accepted ‘if you hear not further’ then it is an exceptional circumstance where silence is acceptance
Eliason v Henshaw
No valid contract as transmission of acceptance had taken longer than what had been stated as sufficient in the offer
The Brimnes
An acceptance communicated in office hours, but not seen, was the D’s own fault and there had therefore been acceptance
Adams v Lindsell
Postal rule - acceptance takes effect when posted
Household Fire Insurance Co
Even if the offeror never receives the acceptance it is nonetheless a binding contract
Holwell Securities
Exception to the postal rule - where acceptance being communicated (here for an option) is so fundamental that when the letter didn’t arrive it didn’t constitute acceptance
LJ Korbetis
Misdirected communication is not acceptance
