Topic 1: Formation

Question 1

Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]

Answer 1

The intention to be bound distinguishes an offer from an invitation to treat.

Question 2

Storer v M.C.C

Answer 2

Offer and an invitation to treat - necessary to look not to the subjective intentions or beliefs of the parties, but rather on what their words and conduct might reasonably and objectively be understood to mean. In this case, clear by d.’s conduct and language that they intended to be bound upon the acceptance of the offer despite the fact that some terms remained to be agreed.

Question 3

Harvey v Facey [1893]

Answer 3

A statement of price is generally needed for there to be an offer, but presence of a price does not necessarily mean an offer.

Question 4

Partridge v Crittenden [1968]

Answer 4

• Advertisements are generally invitations to treat, not offers
• Sellers will not want to be bound to sell more than they have

Question 5

Phamaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953]

Answer 5

The offer is made by the customer at the checkout - that offer can then be accepted or refused by the cashier

Question 6

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

Answer 6

Acceptance is when customer puts money in slot

Question 7

Blue v Ashley [2017]

Answer 7

Conversation in pub
There needs to be an intention to be bound
- setting
- tone
- commercial sense, ect

Question 8

MacInnes v Gross [2017]

Answer 8

Conversation over restaurant dinner

• terms too complex and uncertain
• no written contract
• informal setting

Question 9

RTS Flexible Systems Lmd v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH and Co KG [2010]

Answer 9

It depends on a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct and whether that leads objectively to the conclusion that they intended to create legal relations.

Question 10

Payne v Cave [1789] - revoction and withdrawal prior to acceptance

Answer 10

Auction - withdrawal before hammer

• auctioneer inviting offers
• an offer may be revoked or withdrawn prior to the acceptance
• codified - Sale of Goods Act 1979

Question 11

Routledge v Grant [1828] - deadlines/ timescale for acceptance

Answer 11

• an offer can be revoked even if the offeror has promised to keep the offer open for a specified time
  ( unless there is some consideration from the other party to keep the offer open).

Question 12

Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] - withdrawal has to be communicated

Answer 12

Offeror must notify offeree if offer is being revoked

Question 13

Dickinson v Dodds [1876]

Answer 13

Withdrawal of an offer generally has to be communicated, but information from a third party, that the offeror clearly no longer intends to be bound, may suffice.

Question 14

Hyde v Wrench [1840] - rejection of offer

Answer 14

If it is not on the same terms as the offer, it is a counter offer which acts as a rejection of the original offer => offer cannot be accepted

Question 15

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore [1866] - lapse of time

Answer 15

Accepted offer of shares after 6 months

- Court held that offer was no longer open due to the subject matter (shares) so offer had lapsed - no contract

Question 16

Jones v Daniel [1894]

Answer 16

acceptance must be on the same terms as the offer

Question 17

Stevenson v McClean[1880]

Answer 17

A mere inquiry does not operate as a rejection of the original offer => original offer can still be accepted.

Question 18

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway [1877] - acceptance by conduct

Answer 18

Acceptance took place by performing the contract without any objection as to the terms.

Question 19

Adam v Lindsell [1880] - postal rule

Answer 19

acceptance is effective on posting => applies when post is the agreed form of communication

Question 20

Howell Securities v Hughes [1979]

Answer 20

The postal rule will not apply if offeror makes it clear that they require receipt of acceptance

Question 21

Henthorn v Fraiser [1892]

Answer 21

The postal rule is said to not apply if it was not reasonable to use the post.

Question 22

In Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] - modern communication

Answer 22

“The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror”

Question 23

Tenax Steamship Co v Owners of the Motor Vessel Brimnes [1974] - communication by instantaneous methods of communication

Answer 23

• Communication by instantaneous methods of communication are treated as being immediately communicated so long as they are sent in business hours.
• As long as communication arrives on the relevant machine, it is treated as recieved

Question 24

Mondial Shipping and Chartering BV v Astarte Shipping Ltd [1995]

Answer 24

1. If acceptance is sent out of office hours, the acceptance will only be effective once offer hours restart.
2. The postal rule does not apply to faxes or other modern forms of communication

Question 25

Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010]

Answer 25

Whether a contract has been completed is assessed objectively from the perspective of a reasonable bystander.

Question 26

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] - unilateral contracts

Answer 26

The advert constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer.

• no need for communication of acceptance
• full performance of requested act will suffice
• acceptance by conduct

Question 27

Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cell-O-Corp [1979] - ‘Battle of the forms’

Answer 27

Where there is a battle of the forms whereby each party submits their own terms, the last shot rule applies whereby a contract is concluded on the terms submitted by the party who is the last to communicate those terms before performance of the contract commences