Offer Cases Flashcards
What is the case about old oats?
Old oatsssmith Smith v Hughes
Offer is judged objectively. Would a reasonable man conclude that the parties intend to be bound, regardless of their actual, real intentions?
Contract not valid where deception present.
Case turned on a fine distinction - he wasn’t duping as he didn’t know of C’s belief when he represented, he simply didn’t correct C on his mistake (mistake was made post-representation - sample). D was aware of C’s belief, but the contract wasn’t for OLD oats. It was for oats. So they were ad idem, even though C had made a mistake.
What is the case about horsebeans?
Rose v Pim. A horse named Pim with with rosey beans.
Contract referred to horsebeans, when should’ve stated feveroles. The action failed - the contract was for horsebeans as stated.
Denning: support for objectivity when assessing if offer valid.
What are the three cases on snapping up?
Hartog v Shields
Chwee Kin Kong v Diginandmall.com
Centrovincial Estates
HDC
Case on argentine hare skins? Point of law?
Hartog v Shields. Warthog-like hares. Shields weigh a pound (per piece)
Price per pound given, should’ve been price per piece.
Subjective knowledge of an error defeats the objective appearance of agreement. Snapping up. Not ad idem.
Snapping up applied since was a FUNDAMENTAL term of the deal (price).
Which case would you compare Hartog v Shields to? Why?
Smith v Hughes
This was a mistake as to motive, whereas Hartog was a mistake to do with a fundamental element of the contract, hence snapping up was applied.
Diginandmall.com - what was it about?
Snapping up.
Laser printers.
The state of mind of snappers is crucial (they have to know they’re doing wrong).
For snapping up the mistake also has to be one to do with a fundamental term of the contract so the parties are not ad idem.
What was Centrovincial Estates about?
Snapping up.
Landlord put the wrong price on the agreement. Centrovincial ESTATES.
This was an extension of the basic rule for snapping up: would a REASONABLE PERSON believe a mistake has been made (not the defendant themselves). Importing objectivity into the test for snapping up. The mistake still needs to be one going to the root of the contract - a fundamental term.
What is the effect of Centrovincial Estates?
It mops up the law. It means snapping up can be reconciled with Smith v Hughes and Rose v Pim.
Due to the objectivity imported into the distinction. It can be reconciled because the mistake in these cases is made by the seller and is a mistake over a fundamental term of the contract.
In which case was there an advert for a wild bird? What was the point of law?
PARTRIDGE v Crittenden
Adverts are invitations to treat. (It was an offence to offer wild birds for sale, so D got off)
Case about a flick-knife in a shop window? Point of law?
Fisher v Bell. Flicky Fisher with knife made out of same material as a bell.
Display of goods = invitation to treat, regardless of the ‘on offer’ sign.
What did Lord Simons have to say in Fisher v Bell?
And Lord Parker? Why did they go ahead anyway?
Simonds : a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation.
Parker: reluctant to give the judgment, given the absurd result.
Reason : necessary to preserve certainty in contract law.
Case about wine lists? Point of law?
Grainger v Gough
Gough with a cough from drinking too much wine.
Wine list was an invitation to treat, but there is a ‘manufacturers’ exception’ - would constitute an offer if selling in industrial quantities
Reason: don’t want everyone to be able to sue.
What is Treitel’s comment on Grainger v Gough?
Would a price list sent on request to a single customer constitute an offer rather than an invitation to treat? Probably.
Pharmaceutical society v Boots. What was the point of law?
Offer made when good presented at the till. Idea = to further trade. It has to be made to work in legal terms.
What’s your case on timing?
Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking
Thornton couldn’t tie his shoes in time.
Car drove up to car park. Notice saying no liability. Light. Ticket with exclusionary words (referring to notice).
Exclusionary term not incorporated since came after contract formed, so can’t modify it.
There can be no acceptance without conscious choosing, invitations to treat have no legal status.
Particularly onerous clauses also need more to incorporate them.
Deckchairs case? Point of law?
Chapelton v Barry.
Barry’s really tired and needs a rest.
Deckchairs were the offer, sitting down was the acceptance. So words on the ticket couldn’t amend the contract since it came after the contract was formed.
Main case on unilateral contracts?
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Offer to whole world (though this isn’t the definition of a unilateral contract - that’s where an offer is made conditional on performance by the recipient). A PROMISE FOR AN ACT
So conditional on performance of an act, rather than the transmission of acceptance.
What is the tension in unilateral contracts?
The offeree is never bound to the offer or - he can stop performance at any time. They’re never really ad idem. Only bound to each other when the act has been fully carried out.
Cf. freedom of contract in bilateral contracts where the parties can agree what they like.
Unliateral contracts are more like INDUCEMENTS