Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/21

Click to flip

21 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Payne v Cave
Auctioneer's call for bids is an invitation to treat, a request for offers
Auction
Fisher v Bell
The display of goods with a price ticket attached in a shop window or on a supermarket shelf is not an offer to sell but an invitation for customers to make an offer to buy
Display of goods
P.S.G.B. v Boots Chemists
The display of goods with a price ticket attached in a shop window or on a supermarket shelf is not an offer to sell but an invitation for customers to make an offer to buy
Display of goods
Partridge v Crittenden
Advertisements of goods for sale are normally interpreted as invitations to treat
Advertisement
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
advertisements may be construed as offers if they are unilateral, ie, open to all the world to accept (eg, offers for rewards)
Unilateral offer
Harvey v Facey
A statement of the minimum price at which a party may be willing to sell will not amount to an offer
mere statement of price
Gibson v Manchester County Council
A statement of the minimum price at which a party may be willing to sell will not amount to an offer
Mere statement of price
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co. of Canada
Where goods are advertised for sale by tender, the statement is not an offer, but an invitation to treat; that is, it is a request by the owner of the goods for offers to purchase them.
Competetive tendering
Hyde v Wrench
If in his reply to an offer, the offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of the offer, then that reply cannot amount to an acceptance. Instead, the reply is treated as a "counter offer", which the original offeror is free to accept or reject. A counter-offer also amounts to a rejection of the original offer which cannot then be subsequently accepted.
counter offer
Stevenson v McLean
A counter-offer is different from a mere request for information
request for information
Entores v Miles Far East Corp
an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Until and unless the acceptance is so communicated, no contract comes into existence
communication of acceptance
Powell v Lee
The acceptance must be communicated by the offeree or someone authorised by the offeree. If someone accepts on behalf of the offeree, without authorisation, this will not be a valid acceptance
acceptance by an authorized person
Felthouse v Bindley
The offeror cannot impose a contract on the offeree against his wishes by deeming that his silence should amount to an acceptance
silence is not acceptance
Entores v Miles Far East Corp
Where an instantaneous method of communication is used, eg telex, it will take effect when and where it is received
instantaneous communication
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Balls
In unilateral contracts the normal rule for communication of acceptance to the offeror does not apply. Carrying out the stipulated task is enough to constitute acceptance of the offer
communication of acceptance in unilateral offers
Adams v Lindsell
Where acceptance by post has been requested or where it is an appropriate and reasonable means of communication between the parties, then acceptance is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is posted, even if the letter is delayed, destroyed or lost in the post so that it never reaches the offeror
postal rule
Holwell Securities v Hughes
Where the express terms of the offer exclude the postal rule, ie if the offer specifies that the acceptance must reach the offeror. the postal rule was held not to apply where the offer was to be accepted by "notice in writing". Actual communication was required
methods of communication
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
The offer may be revoked by the offeror at any time until it is accepted. However, the revocation of the offer must be communicated to the offeree(s). Unless and until the revocation is so communicated, it is ineffective
communication of revocation
Dickinson v Dodds
The revocation need not be communicated by the offeror personally, it is sufficient if it is done through a reliable third party
reliable third party communication
Shuey v United States
Where an offer is made to the whole world, it appears that it may be revoked by taking reasonable steps
Errington v Errington
Once the offeree has commenced performance of a unilateral offer, the offeror may not revoke the offer
revocation of unilateral offers