Requirements for a Valid Offer Flashcards
What is a key requirement for a valid offer in contract law?
A) The offer must be clear and certain
B) The offer must always be in writing
C) The offer must include a deposit
D) The offer must be irrevocable
A) The offer must be clear and certain
Explanation: A legally valid offer must be clear and certain in its terms, demonstrating an intention to be bound. If it lacks certainty, it may be considered an invitation to treat, as seen in Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979).
Why was the statement in Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) not considered an offer?
A) The tenant had not paid the price
B) The council’s statement was uncertain and lacked intention to be legally bound
C) The tenant did not sign the agreement
D) The court ruled that all contracts must be in writing
B) The council’s statement was uncertain and lacked intention to be legally bound
Explanation: The council’s letter used the words “may be prepared to sell,” which was not clear and certain. The lack of intention to be legally bound meant that the statement was merely an invitation to treat, not an offer.
Which of the following best describes a bilateral contract?
A) Only one party makes a promise
B) The offeror makes a promise in exchange for an act
C) Both parties assume an obligation to each other
D) A contract that cannot be revoked once made
C) Both parties assume an obligation to each other
Explanation: In a bilateral contract, both parties make promises to each other. For example, one party promises to sell a product, and the other promises to pay. This is different from a unilateral contract, where only one party makes a promise.
A shopkeeper advertises a gaming console for £500 in a leaflet. John visits the shop and demands to buy it. Is the shop legally required to sell it at that price?
A) Yes, because advertisements are binding offers
B) No, because advertisements are generally invitations to treat
C) Yes, because John accepted the price
D) No, because all contracts must be in writing
B) No, because advertisements are generally invitations to treat
Explanation: Advertisements are usually considered invitations to treat, not offers. This means the seller is not legally bound to sell at the advertised price (Partridge v Crittenden [1968]).
What approach does the court use to determine intention to be legally bound?
A) Subjective approach – what the offeror intended
B) Objective approach – what a reasonable person would understand
C) Formalistic approach – only written contracts count
D) Literal approach – words are taken at face value
B) Objective approach – what a reasonable person would understand
Explanation: Courts assess offers using an objective test, meaning they consider how a reasonable person would interpret the words and actions, rather than what the offeror personally intended. This was key in Storer v Manchester City Council (1974).
A company offers a £1,000 reward for the return of a lost item. Jake sees the offer, finds the item, and returns it. What type of contract does this illustrate?
A) Bilateral contract
B) Invitation to Treat
C) Unilateral Contract
D) Void contract
B) Unilateral contract
Explanation: A unilateral contract is accepted by performance of the required act rather than a promise. Jake’s act of returning the item constitutes acceptance, obligating the company to pay (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]).
Sarah finds and returns Alex’s lost dog without having seen Alex’s posted reward offer. Can Sarah legally claim the reward?
A) No, because she was unaware of the offer when performing the act
B) Yes, because she performed the required act
C) Yes, because returning a lost item is legally protected
D) No, because reward offers are not enforceable
A) No, because she was unaware of the offer when performing the act
Explanation: To accept a unilateral contract, the offeree must be aware of the offer before performing the required act (Gibbons v Proctor [1891]). Since Sarah did not know about the offer, there is no binding contract.
Peter emails Susan saying, “I might be interested in selling my car for £4,000.” Susan replies, “I accept.” Is there a valid contract?
A) Yes, because Susan accepted the price
B) No, because Peter’s statement is not a clear and certain offer
C) Yes, because contracts do not require clear language
D) No, because Peter must first sign a written contract
D) No, because Peter must first sign a written contract
Explanation: Some contracts, such as those for land and certain sales of goods, require a written agreement to be enforceable. Since Peter’s offer was vague and unsigned, it does not constitute a valid contract.
David tells Laura, “If you paint my house by Sunday, I will pay you £500.” Laura starts painting on Saturday but does not finish by Sunday. Is David legally required to pay?
A) Yes, because she started performing the act
B) No, because Laura did not fully perform the required act
C) Yes, because partial performance is enough for acceptance
D) No, because unilateral contracts must always be in writing
A) Yes, because she started performing the act
Explanation: In unilateral contracts, starting performance may make the offer irrevocable, even if the full act is not completed (Errington v Errington & Woods [1952]).
A contract states that one party will supply “a reasonable quantity” of goods. Why might this be problematic?
A) It is a valid and enforceable contract
B) It lacks certainty, making it unenforceable
C) It shows an intention to be bound
D) It forms a unilateral contract
B) It lacks certainty, making it unenforceable
Explanation: A contract must be clear and certain in its terms. The phrase “a reasonable quantity” is too vague, making the contract potentially unenforceable in court.
