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;
46 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Storer v Manchester City Council |
OFFER why? - shows certainty / readiness to contract OTF - we are willing to sell the house |
|
|
Gibson v Machester City Council |
ITT why? - part of a pre-negotiation process - shows uncertainty in cases where stocks are limited OTF - We may be prepared to sell the house |
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball |
Unilateral Offer - Promise for an act (Advertisement): Offer Exception to the general rule: Advertisement was an offer |
|
|
Patridge v Crittenden |
Bilateral - Promise for a promise Advertisement: ITT |
|
|
Pharmaceutical Soc. of G.B. v Boots Cash Chemist |
- What was displayed on the shelf of a shop was an ITT - Offer takes place at the cashier |
|
|
Fisher v Bell |
What was displayed in the shop of window was an ITT because (flick knife) for sale was limited |
|
|
Payne v Cave Section 57(2) SOGA 1979 Harris v Nickerson Warlow v Harrison |
Auction Auctioneer / Bidders - Accepts when hammer hits down - Makes the offer |
|
|
Spencer v Harding Blackpool Fylde Hero Club v Blackpool Borough Council |
Tenders 1. Making tender = makes the offer 2. Asking for the tender (ITT) can choose the highest or lowest tender |
|
|
Leftkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores (American Case) |
"First come first serve" |
|
|
Hyde v Wrench |
Counter Offer Party's status' reverse |
|
|
Stevenson v McLean |
Request for further information Does not kill original offer Statutes remain |
|
|
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore |
Termination Lapse of time |
|
|
Bradbury v Morgan |
Termination Death |
|
|
Financing Ltd v Stimson |
Termination Failure of a condition |
|
|
Routledge v Grant |
Offer must be revoked before acceptance |
|
|
Bryne v Van Tienhoven |
Revocation must be communicated before acceptance |
|
|
Dickinson v Dodds |
Revocation can be communicated via reliable 3rd party |
|
|
Errington v Errington |
Unilateral Revocation Once someone has begun the act, offer cannot be revoked |
|
|
Daulia v Four Milbank Nominees |
Unilateral Revocation Once someone has begun the act, offer cannot be revoked |
|
|
Soulsburry v Soulsburry |
Unilateral Revocation - the performance came to an end when ex-husband died |
|
|
Luxor v Cooper |
Unilateral Revocation - no commission because no sale: court introduced Quantum Meruit |
|
|
Shuey v US |
Unilateral Revocation Made to the world at large, can terminate via sufficient notice |
|
|
R v Clarke (Australian case) |
Reward cases / Unilateral - forgetting about the reward is as good as not knowing |
|
|
Williams v Carwardine |
Reward cases / Unilateral - motive was irrelevant |
|
|
Gibbons v Proctor |
Reward cases / Unilateral - discovered about the reward therefore entitled to the reward |
|
|
Fith v Sneadaker (American case) |
Reward cases / Unilateral - one who gives information without knowing the reward cannot claim the reward |
|
|
Felthouse v Bindley |
Silence Offeror cannot impose silence of the offeree |
|
|
Re-Selectmove |
Silence Offeree can impose silence upon himself |
|
|
Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway |
Acceptance by conduct - continuance of supplying coal indicated acceptance |
|
|
Entores v MilesFar East Corp |
GR: Acceptance must be communicated - acceptance takes place when the offeror receives the acceptance |
|
|
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl |
GR: Acceptance must be communicated - applies to all instantaneous communication |
|
|
A specific mode of acceptance, cases? |
Mut be complied to or where the method is equally effective or more effective - If offeror states a method (Tinn v Hoffman) then he must make sure his intentions are clear (Manchester Diocesan Council) |
|
|
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fry |
Unilateral contract Performance of stipulated act = acceptance Offeree must be aware that performance would constitute an acceptance |
|
|
Yates Building v RJ Pulley & Sons |
Where it is for the offerees benefit, the offeree is not obliged to accept |
|
|
Postal Rule, ze case? |
Adams v Lindsell GR - acceptance takes place at the moment of posting |
|
|
Cowan v Conner |
GR applies to telegraph |
|
|
Household Fire Insurance v Grant |
Postal rule only apply if - correctly addressed, stamped and there is proof of posting (even if it gets lost in post) |
|
|
Henthron v Fraser |
It must be reasonable to use the post |
|
|
Holwell Securities v Hughes |
Postal rules must not lead to manifest inconvencien or absurdity |
|
|
Wenkheim v Arndt (New Zealand case) |
When acceptance is made by post, revocation cannot be made by a quicker method |
|
|
A to Z Bazaars v Minister of Agriculture (South African Case) |
When acceptance is made by post, revocation cannot be made by a quicker method |
|
|
Dunmore v Alexander |
Revocation took place because it was the first letter opened by the offeror |
|
|
Postal rule will not apply, cases? |
Holwell Securities v Hughes Entores v Miles Far East The Brimes |
|
|
Holwell Securities v Hughes |
Offeror stipulates that acceptance should take effect on communication |
|
|
Entores v Miles Far East |
telex was used |
|
|
Entores (what Masta Denning said) |
offeror failed to catch words of acceptance and had not asked for it to be repeated = could rely on general rule |
