Abstract:
Contract is an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement consists of two important things, offer and acceptance. Offer and Acceptance is a conventional approach in contract law which is used to decide when an agreement exists between two parties. In order to form a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom is made. Acceptance in order to be legally binding, it is appropriate to fulfill three main rules. To start with, acceptance must be a ‘mirror image’ of the offer. This means that the offeree must be approving to all terms of offer and not trying to put in new terms. Secondly, acceptance must be firm and finally must be communicated to the offeror. In this way, …show more content…
Walter Carwardine was murdered near a pub in Hereford in March 1831, and his body was found in the River Wye in April. The plaintiff, Mrs Williams, gave evidence at the Hereford assizes against two suspects, but did not say all she knew between 13 and 19 April. The suspects were acquitted. On April 25, 1831, the victim's brother and defendant, MrCarwardine, published a handbill, stating there would be a £20 for..."whoever would give such information as would lead to the discovery of the murder of Walter Carwardine."Shortly after, Mrs Williams was "beaten and bruised" by Mr Williams. Thinking she would die soon in August, 1831, and apparently to "ease her conscience", Mrs Williams gave more information which led to the conviction of her husband, Mr William Williams, and another man. She claimed the reward. MrCarwardine refused to pay, arguing that she was not induced by the reward to give the information. At the trial her motives were examined. It was found that she knew about the reward, but that she did not give information specifically to get the reward.He held that she was entitled to the reward. The Court, consisting of Lord Denman CJ, Littledale J and Patteson J held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the £20. The advertisement amounted to a general promise or contract to pay the offered reward to any person who performed the condition mentioned in it, namely, who gave the information. Two judges clearly stated that motives were irrelevant. This case has generated some controversy, because in R v Clarke the Australian High Court held that it was consistent with the proposition that "reliance" on an offer is essential for the possibility of acceptance, and therefore formation of a contract. By contrast, Littledale J suggests that if someone "knows" of an offer, this is
Contract is an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement consists of two important things, offer and acceptance. Offer and Acceptance is a conventional approach in contract law which is used to decide when an agreement exists between two parties. In order to form a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom is made. Acceptance in order to be legally binding, it is appropriate to fulfill three main rules. To start with, acceptance must be a ‘mirror image’ of the offer. This means that the offeree must be approving to all terms of offer and not trying to put in new terms. Secondly, acceptance must be firm and finally must be communicated to the offeror. In this way, …show more content…
Walter Carwardine was murdered near a pub in Hereford in March 1831, and his body was found in the River Wye in April. The plaintiff, Mrs Williams, gave evidence at the Hereford assizes against two suspects, but did not say all she knew between 13 and 19 April. The suspects were acquitted. On April 25, 1831, the victim's brother and defendant, MrCarwardine, published a handbill, stating there would be a £20 for..."whoever would give such information as would lead to the discovery of the murder of Walter Carwardine."Shortly after, Mrs Williams was "beaten and bruised" by Mr Williams. Thinking she would die soon in August, 1831, and apparently to "ease her conscience", Mrs Williams gave more information which led to the conviction of her husband, Mr William Williams, and another man. She claimed the reward. MrCarwardine refused to pay, arguing that she was not induced by the reward to give the information. At the trial her motives were examined. It was found that she knew about the reward, but that she did not give information specifically to get the reward.He held that she was entitled to the reward. The Court, consisting of Lord Denman CJ, Littledale J and Patteson J held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the £20. The advertisement amounted to a general promise or contract to pay the offered reward to any person who performed the condition mentioned in it, namely, who gave the information. Two judges clearly stated that motives were irrelevant. This case has generated some controversy, because in R v Clarke the Australian High Court held that it was consistent with the proposition that "reliance" on an offer is essential for the possibility of acceptance, and therefore formation of a contract. By contrast, Littledale J suggests that if someone "knows" of an offer, this is