Offer and Acceptance Flashcards

1
Q

*Harvey v Facey (1893)

A
  • P telegraphs D - “will you sell BHP? Telegraph lowest cash price” (enquiry) - D replies - “lowest price £900” (invitation to treat) - P relies - “we agree to buy for £900” (offer) - Held no contract * A mere inquiry doesn’t constitute an offer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

*Storer v Manchester CC (1974)

A
  • P (Storer) signs form regarding sale of property - Left out dates regarding when lease would end - D (council) refuses to proceed with sale - Held there is a contract - firm offer there; date just a formality * Objective interpretation of intent - parties may make it clear they wish to contract despite unagreed terms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

*Gibson v Manchester CC (1979)

A
  • P (Gibson) replies to brochure about selling house - D (council) replies - ‘may’ sell the house - P agrees subject to confirmation of price - Before D can reply, they no longer wish to buy houses - Held there was no contract - D’s letter not an offer (‘may’ sell) * ‘May’ be willing to sell does not constitute an offer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

*Baird Textile Holdings v Marks and Spencer plc (2001)

A
  • P (Baird) supplies clothes to D (M&S) for 30 years - D terminates agreement - P sues for lack of notice - Held there was no contract * A contract can be implied but it requires a clear intention to be legally bound
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

*Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd (1953)

A
  • P (society) sues D (Boots) for breach of statute due to shop being self-service - Held there was no breach * Display of goods in a shop merely an invitation to treat. Customer makes the offer by bringing goods to cash desk. Contract concluded at cash desk.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

*Fisher v Bell (1961)

A
  • P (Fisher) sues D (Bell) for being in breach of statute by offering for sale a flick knife - Held there was no breach * Display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

*Harris v Nickerson

A
  • P (Harris) travels to auction to bid for D’s (Nickerson’s) furniture - D removes lots from auction on third day - P sues for losses of time/expensive - Claim rejected * Held that an advert for an auction lot is an invitation to treat - can be revoked until the auction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

*Sale of Goods Act 1979

A

Section 57(2): - Contract formed when auctioneer announces completion of sale e.g. by fall of hammer - Until this point a bid can be revoked Upheld in British Car Auctions v Wright (1972)

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

Warlow v Harrison (1859) - obiter

A
  • Auctioneer makes offer to sell goods to highest bidder - Offer is accepted as soon as highest bid is made Upheld in Barry v Davies (2000) Still leaves one issue: when does auctioneer make the offer? When auction is advertised without a reserve price or when the auctioneer puts the goods up for sale at the auction?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

*Partridge v Crittenden (1968)

A
  • D (Partridge) prosecuted under statute for ‘offering for sale’ wild birds in a newspaper advert - Held he was not in breach of statute * Adverts are an invitation to treat Reason for this explained in Grainger v Gough (1896)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores Ltd (1957)

A

* Where adverts leave nothing open for negotiation, then these are offers

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

*Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

A
  • D (company) places an advert in a newspaper offering to pay £100 to anyone who uses their product as directed and contracts influenza - P (Carlill) catches flu and claims £100 - D claims advert was a ‘mere puff’ and could not have contracted with the whole world - Held that she could claim; advert was a unilateral offer to the world at large * No need for communication of acceptance with a unilateral offer; performance is acceptance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Leonard v Pepsico Inc (1999)

A
  • P (Leonard) purchases Pepsi points at a cost of $700,000 after seeing an advert offering $23m Harrier jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi points (10c each) - Claim rejected; advert was obviously a joke/mere puff * Objective interpretation required to see if there is an offer in an advert
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

*Spencer v Harding (1870)

A

* Calls for tenders are usually invitations to treat. Party calling for tenders not bound to accept any offers.

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

*Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada Ltd (1985)

A

*Exception to Spencer v Harding rule* - D1 invites P (Harvela) and D2 to make confidential bids - promises to accept highest bid - P bids $2,175,000 - D2 bids $2,100,000 or $101,000 in excess of any bid - Held D1’s invitation was an offer to enter into a contract with highest bidder (fixed amount implied) so P won. * Where a party invites tenders and states he will accept the highest offer, the contract is concluded at the time the highest offer is communicated

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

Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC (1990)

A
  • D (council) invites tenders by 12 noon - P (Aero Club) submits bid at 11am - D doesn’t empty post box at 12 noon as usual - Held that D were in breach of contract * A party issuing invitations to consider tenders are bound to consider a tender properly submitted before the deadline
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)

A

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

*Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877)

A
  • D (Metropolitan) sends draft contract to P (Brogden) - P fills in arbitration clause (counter-offer) and sends it back saying ‘approved’ - D doesn’t acknowledge contract - A dispute then arises through trading - P sues D for breach of contract - Held that there was a contract * Where parties show from their conduct that they intend to contract, then an acceptance can be inferred
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

*Hyde v Wrench (1840)

A
  • D (Wrench) offers to sell farm to P (Hyde) for £1,000 - P rejects; offers £950 - D rejects; sells farm to third party - P attempts to accept original £1,000 then sues D for breach of contract - Claim rejected * Counter offers impliedly reject original offers * Rejection of an offer terminates that offer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Jones v Daniel (1894)

A

* Acceptance must exactly fit the offer, otherwise no contract is formed (mirror-image rule)

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

*Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880)

A
  • D (McLean) offers to sell iron to P (Stevenson) - P sends a message back asking about delivery - D sells iron to a third party - Held that D was in breach of contract * A mere inquiry should not be treated as a rejection of an offer (no terms are being changed)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Powierza v Daley (1985)

A

* Test to be applied for Stevenson v McLean principle (mere inquiry) is the reasonable, objective person test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

British Road Services v Crutchley Ltd (1968)

A
  • P (BRS) delivers whisky to D (Crutchley) - P Driver hands D a note incorporating P’s conditions - D stamps the note ‘received under our conditions’ - Held to be a counter-offer, accepted by P in handing over the goods * ‘Last shot’ wins
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

*Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation Ltd (1979)

A

Lord Denning’s unorthodox approach: - ‘last shot’ analysis: contract formed when the last of the forms is sent, and received with no objection - sometimes forms will vary but there will be a concluded contract - here the conflicting terms need to be replaced

25
Q

GHSP Inc v AB Electronic Ltd (2010)

A

* Contracts may be concluded on neither of the party’s terms but instead there is implied terms from the Sale of Goods Act 1979

26
Q

*Tinn v Hoffman (1873)

A

* Acceptance must correspond with the offer

27
Q

Gibbons v Proctor (1891)

A
  • D (Proctor) publishes a handbill offering reward for information - P (Gibbons) passes on information to Penn before handbill is published - Penn passes on info to relevant authority - Held P could claim reward as he was acting as an agent of Penn * Adverts of rewards for information are treated as an offer (no further bargaining required)
28
Q

Williams v Carwardine (1833)

A

* Motive of an individual in performing an act and thus accepting the contract has nothing to do with their right to recover

29
Q

R v Clarke (1927)

A
  • D (Clarke) tried to claim reward he had forgotten about - Claim rejected * Cannot accept an offer that one doesn’t know exists or has forgotten about
30
Q

*Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp (1955)

A

* Lord Denning: acceptance doesn’t have effect until it is successfully communicated to the offeror * Contract is made in the place where the acceptance is received

31
Q

*Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983)

A

* Lord Wilberforce: contract is formed at the point where acceptance is communicated to offeror * Office hours rule established * When looking at modern instantaneous communication forms, you must consider the intention of the parties, sound business practice and judgement of risk

32
Q

Tenax Steamship Co v The Brimnes (1975)

A

* Communication by telex (and now fax) is effective when it COULD have been read

33
Q

Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computers Inc (2004)

A

* Exception to Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp rule * * Contracts can be made in two jurisdictions

34
Q

*Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

A
  • P (Felthouse) sends nephew message ‘if I hear no more I will assume the horse is mine for £30’ - Nephew doesn’t reply but withdraws horse from auction - D (Bindley), the auctioneer, forgets to withdraw horse - P sues D; held no claim * Cannot accept by silence - need to do something to show intention to accept
35
Q

Rust v Abbey Life Insurance Co (1979)

A

*Exception to Felthouse v Bindley rule* - P (Rust) silent for seven months - D (Abbey Life) assumes she has accepted the property bond - Held she had accepted * Can accept by silence though more so where the offeror has started negotiations

36
Q

*Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) (acceptance)

A

* Acceptance need not be communicated in a unilateral contract

37
Q

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd

A

* Acceptance which meets the offeror’s objective in prescribing a method of acceptance will remain valid

38
Q

*Adams v Lindsell (1818)

A
  • D (Lindsell) offers to sell P (Adams) wool by post - P posts letter of acceptance - By the time it arrives, D has sold wool to someone else, assuming the offer had been rejected - Held there was a contract * Contract is made at the time a letter is posted (postal rule)
39
Q

Dunlop v Higgins (1848)

A

* If a letter of acceptance is delayed due to the postal service then postal rule still applies

40
Q

Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879)

A

* If a letter of acceptance is never received then postal rule still applies

41
Q

Henthorne v Fraser (1892)

A

*Same finding as Byrne v Van Tienhoven* * Postal rule doesn’t apply to revocation - doesn’t take effect until received by offeree

42
Q

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)

A

*Exception to Adams v Lindsell* - D (Van Tienhoven) offers to sell 1,000 boxes of plates to P (Byrne) by post for a fixed price - D sends a letter of revocation shortly after - P accepts offer before revocation arrived - D sells on goods so P seeks specific performance - Held D was bound * Postal rule doesn’t apply to revocation - doesn’t take effect until received by offeree. (i.e. withdrawal must be communication)

43
Q

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974)

A

*Exception to Adams v Lindsell* * Offers requiring ‘notice in writing’ are excluded from the postal rule as they expressly exclude it

44
Q

Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV (2005)

A

*Exception to Adams v Lindsell* * Rule doesn’t apply where letter is wrongly addressed

45
Q

Wenkheim v Arndt

A

* An acceptance can’t be revoked as it is binding upon posting

46
Q

Dunmore v Alexander

A

* An acceptance may be revoked after posting

47
Q

Routledge v Grant (1828)

A
  • D (Grant) offers to buy P’s (Routledge’s) house ‘with a definite answer to be given within 6 weeks’ - Held D was not bound to keep the offer open * An offer can be withdrawn at any time prior to a contract being formed
48
Q

Dickinson v Dodds (1876)

A
  • D (Dodds) offers to sell house to P (Dickinson) - offer open until Friday - D accepts 3rd party offer on Thursday - D asks friend to tell P that offer is withdrawn - P then attempts to accept offer on Friday - P seeks specific performance - Held there was no contract - Offer had been withdrawn. Also not bound to keep the offer open until Friday as there was no consideration for this promise * Notice of withdrawal doesn’t need to come directly from the offeror
49
Q

Shuey v US (1875)

A
  • D (US) offers reward of $25,000 for information about a criminal - 7 months later, a notice revoking the offer is published - 4 months later, P (Shuey), unaware that the offer has been revoked, provides information on the criminal - Held P could not claim * Reward must be revoked before part-performance * Revocation must be posted in a similar way to how offer was made (i.e. reasonable steps to notify those who would have seen the offer)
50
Q

*Errington v Errington (& Woods) (1952)

A
  • Father promises to give house to son and daughter-in-law (D) if they pay off mortgage - No promise is made in return - Father dies after some repayments made - Other family member claims possession of house - D seeks possession - Claim rejected * In the case of unilateral contracts, an offer can’t be revoked once performance of the act has started * However full performance of the act must eventually take place before the promise is binding Upheld obiter in Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees (1978)
51
Q

Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper

A

* Exception to Errington v Errington & Woods case * * Offeror may revoke an offer once performance has commenced - depends on construction of promise

52
Q

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866)

A
  • P (Ramsgate) offers to buy shares in D (Montefiore) - D doesn’t issue shares for sale for 5 months - Held offer had lapsed * Offers can lapse after a ‘reasonable time’ - depends on nature of offer and subject of contract. e.g. shares fluctuate quickly so offers will lapse after a short period
53
Q

Death

A

* Death of either party will terminate a personal offer * Commercial offers may still go ahead through estate

54
Q

* Scammell & Nephew v Ouston (1941)

A
  • P (Scammell) agrees price to trade in old van with new one with D (Ouston) - Also agree that they would pay for this ‘on hire purchase terms’ for two years - Held there was no contract * Agreements can’t be enforced where they are too uncertain (couldn’t infer a price)
55
Q

Hillas v Arcos (1932)

A
  • Agree for sale of timber over a year (22,000) with option to purchase 1,000 more - Held the option to buy 1,000 more was enforceable * Terms can be inferred from an original contract
56
Q

Foley v Classique Coaches (1934)

A

* Where performance has already started, there is more pressure on the courts to find a binding contract

57
Q

May and Butcher v R (1929)

A

* Court cannot step in where something about the price has been said but not agreed on. However can infer a reasonable price where one has not been at all mentioned.

58
Q

Winn v Bull (1877)

A
  • P and D agree a lease on a house ‘subject to contract’ - Held no contract yet * Possible for an agreement to be made ‘subject to contract’ so that it is only binding once both parties agree that it is