Offer and acceptance principles Flashcards
The meaning of an agreement
Gibson v Manchester City Council
The Objectivity principle
Smith v Hughes
Conduct can sometimes infer an offer
Steven v Bromley
No offer will be inferred from conduct reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation
Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio
Auctions with no reserve price
Warlow v Harrison
Barry v Davies
Display of goods in Shop windows
Fisher v Bell
Display of goods on shelves
Pharmaceutical society of great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
Advertising goods for sale
Partridge v Crittenden
Harris v Nickerson
Catalogue
Grainger v Gough
Website
Chwee Kin Keong v Digiland Mall
Unilateral Contracts
Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolic Surplus Stores
Tenders
Spencer v Harding
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool BC
Fixed bidding: Referential bids
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust
Certainty and complete contract
May & Butcher v The King
Foley v Classique Coaches
Hillas v Arcos
Scammell & Nephew v Ouston
An agreement to agree
Courtney v Tolaini Brothers
Walford v Miles
Lock out Agreements
Pitt v PHH Assert
Acceptance takes place where it is communicated
Entores v Miles Far east Corp
Brinkibon v Stahag Stah
A mere meeting of minds is not enough
Tinn v Hoffman
Silence is not acceptance
Felthouse v Bindley
Acceptance by clear conduct
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Ambiguity will deny the clear reference to the offer
The Leonidas D
Battle of the forms
BRB v AVG
Lidl v Hertford Foods
In bilateral contracts you have to know about acceptance
Taylor v Allon
In unilateral contracts you do not necessarily have to know about acceptance
Gibbons v Protector Revisited
Acceptance with a motivation other than acceptance of offer
Williams v Carwardine
R v Clarke
Taylor v Allon
Method of acceptance not stipulated to be the sole method
Manchester Diocesan Council v C & G Investments
Postal Acceptance Rule
Adams v Lindsell
Where is postal acceptance rule inapplicable?
1) When post is not the permitted method of acceptance: Quenerduaine v Cole
2) The postal service is known to be distrupted: Bal v Van Staden
3) The terms of the offer preclude the PAR by expressly or impliedly requiring communication:
Holwell Securities v Hughes
4) The acceptance is not correctly addressed through the carelessness of the offeree: Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping
The PAR means contract is concluded at the time of posting
Adams v Lindsell
Household Fire Insurance v Grant
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Scope of PAR
Telegrams: Cowan v O’Connor
Not
Telephone or telex: Entores v Miles Far East + Brinkibon v Stahag
Email - Chwee Kin Keong v Digiland Mall
Website transactions: Chwee
Counter Offer
Hyde v Wrench
Enquiry
Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean
Offer will expire after lapse of time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore
An offer may be revoked at any time prior accceptance
Routledge v Grant
Revocation must be communicated
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Revocation need not be communicated by the offeror
Dickinson v Dodds
Revocation of unilateral offer
Shuey v US
Offer cannot be revoked in unilateral offer
Errington v Errington
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees
New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite
