Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
81 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Offer Definition
G.H Tritel |
an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed
|
|
|
Smith v. Hughes (1871)
|
the reasonable man (objective) test on agreement
|
|
|
Storer v. Manchester City Council [1974]
|
Acceptance of offer
Council stated that if the signed contract was returned then the council would sign it. |
|
|
Gibson v. Manchester City Council [1979]
|
Completed application form is usually an invitation to treat.
|
|
|
What is the rule that makes an offer valid?
|
A valid offer must be communicated, written, oral or by conduct to a person, a group of people or the whole world.
|
|
|
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893]
Contract type |
A unilateral contract may be offered to the whole world
|
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953]
|
Goods in a shop are an invitation to treat
|
|
|
Fisher v. Bell [1961]
|
Goods in a shop window are an invitation to treat
|
|
|
Partridge v. Crittenden [1968]
|
Generally an advertisement is an invitation to treat
|
|
|
Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking [1971]
|
Vending machines may be offers.
Lord Denning: 'once the money is inserted the transaction is irrevocable' |
|
|
Payne v. Cave [1879]
|
In an auction requests for bids are an invitation to treat
|
|
|
Barry v. Heathcote Ball [2001]
|
A without reserve auction is a unilateral offer by the auctioneer to sell to the highest bidder.
confirms dicta in Warlow v. Harrison [1859] |
|
|
What are tenders?
|
Tenders are normally an invitation to treat
|
|
|
Harvela v. Royal Trust of Canada [1985]
|
If a tender is to be awarded to the lowest bidder then it is a unilateral offer to award it to the lowest bidder.
|
|
|
Blackpool and Flyde Aero Club v. Blackpool CC
|
If tender is addressed to the recipient then it is a unilateral offer that once submitted the tender will be considered.
|
|
|
Termination of offer by revocation, general rules?
|
Can withdraw at any time before acceptance
Revocation must be communicated before acceptance |
|
|
Byrne v. Van Tienhoven [1880]
|
Revocation by telegram is valid when it is received.
|
|
|
Dickinson v. Dodds [1856]
|
Revocation by a third party will suffice.
|
|
|
Shuey v. USA [1875]
|
For a unilateral offer communication of revocation will be assumed where reasonable steps have been taken to inform the public.
|
|
|
Errington v. Errington [1952]
|
Revocation cannot take place once the offeree has started to perform.
|
|
|
Termination of offer:
Lapse |
- at the end of a stipulated time
- after a reasonable time - death of the offeree - death of the offeror if of a personal nature - failure of an express or implied term |
|
|
Termination of offer:
Rejection |
May be implied or express
|
|
|
Hyde v. Wrench [1840]
Rejection |
A counter offer is an implied rejection
|
|
|
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway [1877]
Counter offer |
Any alteration to the terms of the offer is a counter offer
(case dealt with a written agreement) |
|
|
Hyde v. Wrench [1840]
Counter offer |
A counter offer is an implied revocation of the offer.
A counter offer destroys the offer. |
|
|
Butler Machine Tool Co v. Ex-Cell-O [1979]
|
The court looked for a matching offer and acceptance.
|
|
|
Stevenson v. McLean [1880]
|
A request for information is not a counter offer.
|
|
|
The general rules for acceptance
|
- must be made while the offer is in force.
- must be made by the offeree. - must exactly match the terms of the offer. - must be written, oral or implied from conduct. |
|
|
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway [1877]
Acceptance |
A counter offer was accepted by conduct when the coal was ordered.
|
|
|
R v. Clarke [1927] Australia
|
A person cannot accept an offer of which he has no knowledge.
|
|
|
Williams v. Carwardine [1833] Australia
|
A persons motive for accepting an offer is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Powell v. Lee [1908]
|
An offer must be communicated by the offeree or his agent.
|
|
|
Felthouse v. Brindley [1862]
|
Silence cannot be acceptance
|
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
Acceptance |
The need for communication of acceptance can be expressly or impliedly waived
|
|
|
Entores v. Miles Far East Corpn [1955]
Communication of acceptance |
Acceptance could be waived where failure to receive it is the fault of the offeror (if telex was broken)
|
|
|
Adams v Lindsell [1818]
|
Acceptance by letter is generally effective when it is sent, even if it is delayed or lost in the post.
- must be correctly addressed and stamped. |
|
|
Currie v. Misa [1875]
|
Consideration is some benefit to one party and/or some detriment or loss suffered or undertaken by the other.
|
|
|
Combe v. Combe [1951]
|
Consideration must have an element of exchange.
|
|
|
Dunlop v. Selfridge [1915]
|
Consideration is the price for the promise
|
|
|
Consideration need not be ________________________
but must be ___________________________ |
Consideration need not be adequate
but must be sufficient. |
|
|
Bret v. J.S (1600)
|
Natural love and affection is not sufficient.
|
|
|
Chappel & Co v. Nestle [1960]
|
Consideration is good even if the value is slight (3 sweet wrappers)
|
|
|
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974]
|
The postal rule can be easily displaced expressly or impliedly.
- offeror required 'notice in writing' |
|
|
Entores Ltd v. miles Far East Corpn [1955]
|
Acceptance by telex (telephone or fax, and possibly email) takes place where it is received.
|
|
|
The Brimnes [1975]
|
Acceptance by telex takes place when it is received, providing it is within business hours.
|
|
|
Brinkibon v. Stahag Stahl [1983]
|
If received outside of business hours then acceptance is effective when it is read, or when it is reasonable to expect it has been read.
- 'no universal rule' (also confirms rule in Entores) |
|
|
Mountford v. Scott [1975]
|
£1 is sufficient consideration to secure an option to buy a house.
|
|
|
Re McArdle
|
Past consideration is no consideration
|
|
|
Pao On v. Lau Yui Long [1980]
|
Past consideration may be good:
- if done at the promisors request - if understood to be rewarded in some way - if it would have been enforceable had it been made in advance. |
|
|
Lampleigh v. Braithwait (1615)
|
Past consideration may be good if done ta the promisors request.
|
|
|
Re Casey's Patents [1892]
|
Past consideration may be good if t was understood that the promissee was to be rewarded in some way.
|
|
|
Collins v. Godefroy [1831]
|
Performing a legal duty is not good consideration
(Witness obliged, by law, to give evidence) |
|
|
Glasbrook v. Glamorgan CC [1925]
|
Exceeding a legal duty may be good consideration
(Additional policy protection, above legal duty, charged for by council) |
|
|
Ward v. Byham [1956]
|
Exceeding a duty bay be good consideration.
(Father would pay £1 a week if mother could prove child was well looked after and happy) |
|
|
Stilk v. Myrick (1809)
|
Generally performance of an existing duty is not good consideration.
(2 sailors deserted) |
|
|
Hartley v. Ponsonby [1857]
|
Exceeding an existing duty is good consideration.
(Sailors half the crew deserted) |
|
|
Williams v. Roffey Bros [1991]
|
Performance of an existing duty may be good consideration where there is an additional benefit to the promisor.
(promisor avoided a penalty clause) |
|
|
Shadwell v. Shadwell [1860]
|
Performance of a duty owed to a third party may be consideration.
(Already contractually obliged to marry) |
|
|
Pinnel's Case
|
A promise to pay a smaller sum, does not discharge the duty to pay a higher sum.
(Horse, hawk and robe case) |
|
|
Foakes v. Beer (1884) HoL
|
Part payment of a debt is not consideration.
(House of lords confirms the principal in Pinnel's case) |
|
|
Re Selectmove [1995]
|
The principal of additional benefit to the promisor in Williams v. Roffey does not extend to part payment of a debt.
|
|
|
High Trees [1947]
|
A promise without consideration may be binding.
(The law of equity) (Reduced rent during war) |
|
|
Combe v. Combe [1951]
|
Promissory Estoppel does not create a new contract
(Shield not Sword) |
|
|
The Scraptrade [1983]
|
The promise must be clear and unequivocal
|
|
|
Ajayi v. Briscoe [1964]
|
The promisee must have acted in reliance of the promise.
|
|
|
D C Builders v. Rees [1966]
|
It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise.
|
|
|
Tool Metal v Tungsten [1955]
|
Promissory Estoppel extinguishes current rights and suspends future rights, which can be resumed on reasonable notice.
(waive patent payments during war) |
|
|
Ajayi v. Briscoe [1964]
(rights) |
Rights that are impossible to resume are extinguished.
|
|
|
Promissory Estoppel is contrary to?
|
the principals in Pinnel's Case and Foakes v. Beer.
PE is equity over the common law. |
|
|
Esso v. Customs and Excise [1976]
|
In commercial agreements there is a rebuttable presumption of an intention to create legal relations.
|
|
|
Edwards v. Skyways [1964]
|
In commercial agreements there is a rebuttable presumption of an intention to create legal relations.
|
|
|
Rose & Frank v. Crompton Bros [1923]
|
An honourable pledge is required to rebut the presumption.
(difficult to rebut) |
|
|
Balfour v. Balfour [1919]
|
In domestic agreements there is a rebuttable presumption of no intention to create legal relations.
(Husband and wife case) |
|
|
Marritt v. Merritt [1970]
|
A clear agreement where the parties are separating is sufficient to rebut the presumption.
(Husband and wife separating case) |
|
|
Simpkins v. Pays [1955]
|
Where there is mutuality in the agreement the presumption is upheld.
(Grandmother and granddaughter case) (Joint competition entry) |
|
|
Snelling v. Snelling [1973]
|
The presumption of no intention in domestic agreements is rebutted where the agreement is of a commercial nature.
|
|
|
Parker v. Clark [1960]
|
The presumption of no intention in domestic agreements is rebutted where there is reliance on the agreement.
(sold house in reliance of agreement) |
|
|
Promisee
|
A person to whom a promise is made.
|
|
|
Promisor
|
A person that makes a promise
|
|
|
Offeree
|
A person to whom an offer is made
|
|
|
Offeror
|
A person who makes an offer to another
|
