Offer case specifics

Question 1

What was established in the case of the Aramis.

Answer 1

It was established that a contract can be made by conduct.

In this case, it was stated that a contract can only be implied by conduct if it can be expected that enforceable obligations exist based on the conduct of the parties.
The court went on to state that it would be fatal to the implication of a contract if the parties would have acted in the manner that they did in the absence of a contract.

Question 2

What was stated in the case of Smith v Hughes, in relation to conduct?

Answer 2

It was established that a contract can be made by conduct.

In this case, the court stated, that whatsoever a mans real intentions may be, if he so conducts himself in a manner that a reasonable man would believe that that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and based on this belief the the other party enters into a contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would equally be bound as though he had intended to agree with the other party’s terms.

Question 3

what was established in the case of Taylor v Laird

Answer 3

It was established that an offer must be communicated in order to be considered valid.

In this case the plaintiff was denied his request to recover wages done for his work as an ordinary crew member, because he did not tell his employers that he had abandoned his position as captain of a ship on a voyage back to Britain, to work as an ordinary crew member.
The court was of the view that the plaintiff should have at least informed his employers of his decision to work in that capacity so that they could a decide to accept or reject his offer.

Question 4

What was established in the case of Storer v Manchester City Council?

Answer 4

It was established that the offeror must have intent to bound by his offer if it has been accepted.

In this case the court stated that an offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to be binding as soon as it has been accepted by the offeree.

Lord Denning also stated that: “In contracts, you don’t look at the actual intent of a mans mind, but you look at what the man said or did. If there is to all outward appearances a contract, then there is a contract. A man cannot come out of a contract by saying I did not intend to contract, his intent is only to be found in his outward expression.”

Question 5

What was established in the case of Guthing v Lynn?

Answer 5

It was established that an offer must be: specific, definite and complete, in order for it to be valid.

In this case, the court refused to uphold a promise made by the defendants to pay $5 extra for a horse they had purchased if it was lucky, because they thought it was too vague to constitute a binding contract.

Question 6

What was established in the case of Master v Cameron?

Answer 6

It was established that it is not mandatory for an offer to contain detailed terms which can always be settled at a later stage in the agreement process.

In this case, the parties signed a written memorandum for the sale of a farm, which was subject to the preparation of a formal contract of sale.
The plaintiff paid a deposit fee, but later on changed his mind about buying the piece of land, and sought to recover his money.
The court held that he was entitled to recover his money, because the memorandum signed did not constitute a binding/ enforceable contract, since it was subject to a formal contract that would be written at a later date.

Question 7

What was established in the case of pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists.

Answer 7

It was established that the display of goods in a self- service shop is not an offer.
In this case, the court held that the defendants were not offering for sale substances in an unsupervised manner as required by Section 17(1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, because a contract was only completed once a customer offered the shopkeeper the item for sale which he would then accept under supervised scrutiny of a registered pharmacist.

They equally opined that it would be unreasonable to expect goods displayed in a self-service shop to be offers, because the customer would be bound to purchase every item that he placed in his basket without having the opportunity to substitute it for something that he instead preferred.

Question 8

What was established in the case of Fisher v Bell?

Answer 8

It was established that the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is not an offer for sale.

In this case, the court held that the display of a flick Knife in a shop window, in no sense amounted to an offer for sell. It was merely an invitation to treat.

Question 9

What was established in the case of Partridge v Crittenden?

Answer 9

It was established that an advertisement is not an offer.

In this case the court held that an advertisement for the sale of Bramble Finch Cocks and Hens, in a periodical was merely an invitation to treat.
They reasoned that if an advertisement were to be an offer, the merchant would find himself in a number of contractual agreements that he would be unable to satisfy owing to the fact that he had limited stock.

Question 10

What was established in the case of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke ball.

Answer 10

It was established that advertisements in unilateral contracts are offers to the whole world, that can be accepted by any person that elects to perform the conditions stated in the offer.

In this case, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a reward of 100 pounds after catching influenza, from using a smoke ball according to the instructions in the advertisement.

Question 11

What was established in the case of Spencer v Harding?

Answer 11

It was established that an invitation to tender is not an offer.

In this case, an advertisement inviting tenders from the general public was construed as an invitation to treat, as the person submitting the tender was deemed to be making an offer which could either be accepted or rejected by the defendant.

Question 12

What was established in the case of Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council?

Answer 12

It was established that offers that have been sent in response to an invitation to tender must at least be considered if they have been sent in a manner which satisfies the guidelines.

In this case, the court reasoned that
although an invitation to tender did not amount to an offer, Blackpool Borough council was still under an implied obligation to at least consider the tenders submitted within the stipulated time frame, for consideration by the Board.

Question 13

What was established in the case of Payne v Cave?

Answer 13

It was established that an auctioneers request for bids, is not an offer but an invitation to treat, and that the offer is made by the bidder, which is subsequently accepted by the auctioneer through the falling of a hammer.

In this case, the court opined that the request for bids by the auctioneer amounted to an invitation to treat, which he was entitled to withdraw at any point before he signified acceptance of the bid by the fall of a hammer.

Question 14

What was established in the case of Heathcote Ball v Barry?

Answer 14

it was established that where an auction is held without reserve, the auctioneer makes a unilateral offer which is accepted by submitting the highest bid.

Question 15

What was established in Warlow v Harrison?

Answer 15

It was established that an auction that is held without reserve is an offer and the auctioneer is under an obligation to accept the highest bidder.

In this case, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for damages for the lost opportunity to buy a horse at an auction sale. Following the auctioneers failure to accept his bid as the highest bonafide bidder at the auction sale held without reserve.

Question 16

What was established in the case of Harvey v Facey?

Answer 16

It was established that the supply or request for information does not amount to an offer, but an invitation to treat.

In this case, the plaintiffs had sent a telegraph querying how much the lowest cash price would be for a bumper hall pen. The defendant’s responded by saying their lowest price was 900 pounds. The plaintiffs responded by saying they agreed to buy the bumper hall pen for 900 pounds as asked by the defendants. However the court opined that the plaintiffs acceptance was invalid because the statement of price was not an offer that was capable of acceptance.

Question 17

What was established in the case of Bigg v Boyd Gibbins.

Answer 17

It was established that where a statement of price intends an offer, the statement will be binding if accepted.

In this particular case, the court opined that the correspondence between the the plaintiff and the defendant amounted to a contract for the sale of his property. Because the defendant said, “For a quick sale, I will accept 26,000 pounds .”
And the plaintiff responded by saying, “ I accept your offer.” With the parties both believing that they had struck a bargain for the sale and purchase of the said property.

Question 18

What was established in the case of Harris V Nickerson?

Answer 18

It was established that a declaration of intention is not an offer but an invitation to treat.
In this particular case, The auctioneer could not held be liable to the plaintiff and every other person who attended the auction sale for their missed opportunity to buy the furniture that the defendant had withdrawn from the auction sale, based on his declaration in an advertisement to sale the said pieces of furniture.

Question 19

What was established in the case of

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore.

Answer 19

It was established that an offer can be terminated after the lapse of reasonable time, and what was reasonable depended on each case and the subject matter being dealt with.

In this particular case, reasonable time was said to have lapsed after the depreciation of value in shares, following the plaintiffs late response to accept an offer for the purchase shares from them in over six months.

Question 20

What was established in the case of Financing’s v Stimson?

Answer 20

It was established that the failure of a pre-condition is a ground to terminate an offer.

In this particular case, the court held that the defendant was no longer bound to continue making payments to a finance company for a car purchased under hire a hire purchase agreement, because the car was no longer in the condition that it was in, when the initial offer had been made to him.

Question 21

What was established in the case of Hyde v Wrench?

Answer 21

It was established that a counter offer terminates the original offer.

In this case, the defendant had offered to sell his farm for 1000 pounds. The plaintiff offered to instead buy it at 950 pounds. Later on he changed his mind and decided to buy at the original 1000 pounds.
The court held that the offer was no longer valid, because the plaintiff had made a counter offer which destroyed the original offer.

Question 22

What was established in the case of Reynolds v Atherton.

Answer 22

It was established that the death of the offeror or offeree terminates an offer.

In this case, survivors and personal representatives of deceased persons had attempted to accept an offer for the sale of some shares made to them when they were directors of a company.
The court held that their acceptance was invalid as the offer had only been intended to be made to living persons.
The court further propounded that when a person ceases to be alive, before the offer is accepted, the offer ceases to be an offer that is capable of acceptance, by even his executors.

Question 23

What was established in the case of Bradbury v Morgan?

Answer 23

It was established that death does not terminate a contract, and that executors and administrators are implied parties to a contract.
In this case, the deceased’s executors had refused to satisfy the repayment of debt accrued from a contract, in which the deceased made a promise to guaranty his brothers credit for the supply of goods by the plaintiffs.
The court held that a contract is not put to an end by death, and therefore the executors of the deceased were under an obligation to satisfy his debts and liabilities.
The court further stated that an exception to this rule is in respect of contracts that require personal performance of the contract in order for it to be complete or satisfied.

Question 24

What was established in the case of Routledge v Grant?

Answer 24

It was established that an offer can be withdrawn at any time before it has been accepted.
In this case, the plaintiff had accepted an offer to lease the defendants premises, that was slated to be open for a period of six weeks. However, the defendant withdrew this offer before the six weeks had lapsed. Without knowing about this withdraw, the plaintiff accepted the offer.
It was held that the defendant was not under an obligation to keep the offer open for six weeks, he could withdraw it at anytime before it had been accepted.

Question 25

What was established in the case of Stevenson v McLean?

Answer 25

It was established that revocation of an offer must be communicated in order to be deemed valid.
In this case, the sale of iron by the defendants to a third party was considered to be invalid because they had not informed the plaintiff’s of their decision to revoke the offer to sell the iron to them.

Question 26

What was established in the case of Bryne v Van Tienhoven?

Answer 26

It was established that revocation of an offer is only valid once it has been communicated.
The court equally stated that revocation of an offer by post is not effective until it has reached the oferee, this is because it would be an extreme injustice to allow revocation by post to be effected at the moment that it has been posted, because the offeree would have to wait and make sure that before he accepts the offer, there is no letter withdrawing his offer that has been sent prior to his acceptance of it.

Question 27

What was established in Dickinson v Dodds?

Answer 27

It was established that revocation of an offer can be communicated by a reliable third party.
In this case, the plaintiffs acceptance of an offer to buy the defendant’s property was held to be invalid because he wrote a letter accepting the offer to buy the property despite being told by the defendants acting agent that the defendant was planing to sell the property to someone else.
The court reasoned that at the point that the defendant had made up his mind to sell the property to somebody else, and the third party had informed the plaintiff of it, there ceased to be a valid offer which could have been accepted. This is because the two minds were no longer ad idem (of the same accord) at the time when the other party was accepting the offer.

Question 28

What was established in the case of the Brimness?

Answer 28

It was established that communication of revocation of an offer sent by telex or another mode of instantaneous communication, is deemed to be effective at the moment that it is received and not read.

In this case, the communication of the message of withdraw of a ship was deemed to have been effective at the moment at which the message had been received and not read.
The fact that the message of withdraw had only been read the following morning was immaterial, as the message had been sent during ordinary business hours, and as such was regarded as having been received.

Question 29

What was established in the case of Errington v Errington?

Answer 29

It was established that an offer cannot be revoked in a unilateral contract once the offeree has commenced performance.

In this case, the court estopped a mother in laws decision to revoke an offer that her late husband had made to her daughter in law and her son, to transfer the property he had bought for them in their name, once they had finished paying mortgage installments.
The court was of the view the contract at stake was a unilateral contract, and the couples act of paying the mortgage installments , signified their acceptance of the unilateral offer, despite them being in the process of making the payments.

Question 30

What was established in the case of Daulia v four Mill bank nominees.

Answer 30

It was established that a unilateral offer cannot be revoked once the oferee has already embarked on performance of the contract.
In this case, Lord Goff stated obiter that: In unilateral contracts, once the oferee has embarked on performance, it is too late for the offeror to revoke his offer.