Offer and Acceptance Flashcards
*Harvey v Facey (1893)
- 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
*Storer v Manchester CC (1974)
- 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
*Gibson v Manchester CC (1979)
- 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
*Baird Textile Holdings v Marks and Spencer plc (2001)
- 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
*Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd (1953)
- 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.
*Fisher v Bell (1961)
- 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
*Harris v Nickerson
- 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
*Sale of Goods Act 1979
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)
Warlow v Harrison (1859) - obiter
- 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?
*Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
- 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)
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores Ltd (1957)
* Where adverts leave nothing open for negotiation, then these are offers
*Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
- 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
Leonard v Pepsico Inc (1999)
- 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
*Spencer v Harding (1870)
* Calls for tenders are usually invitations to treat. Party calling for tenders not bound to accept any offers.
*Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada Ltd (1985)
*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
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool BC (1990)
- 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
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)
…
*Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877)
- 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
*Hyde v Wrench (1840)
- 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
Jones v Daniel (1894)
* Acceptance must exactly fit the offer, otherwise no contract is formed (mirror-image rule)
*Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880)
- 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)
Powierza v Daley (1985)
* Test to be applied for Stevenson v McLean principle (mere inquiry) is the reasonable, objective person test
British Road Services v Crutchley Ltd (1968)
- 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