The Case Of Gibson Vs. Storer V Manchester City Council

Contracts are an integral part of society, having strong legal contractual principles gives confidence to consumers, investors and anyone who wishes to enter into a contract. Entering in a contract shows that in a primitive way that two parties are on the same page, however it is noted that a high proportion of litigation does actually stem from misunderstood contract (Duxbury (2011)).In this scenario Gary believes he has a valid contract with Mike and is disappointed to learn that Mike has sold on the Bike to Liz (third party). Using previous cases as precedent and analysing the conditions in which a contract is made, advice will be given to Gary on his legal position in regards to the contract and whether there is any suitable remedy that …show more content…
The cases have contrasting outcomes due mainly due to the language used by Manchester City Council which ended in Storer being able to buy the council house and Gibson being declined to buy the council house. In the Case of Gibson, Manchester City Council stated that they “may be prepared to sell the house”; whilst in the Storer case they stated that “if you will sign the Agreement and return to me, I will send you the Agreement sign on behalf of the Council in exchange”. The language and conduct of the Manchester City Council was objectively scrutinized in each case and found that there was intention to be bound in the Storer case however there was no intention to be bound in the Gibson case, Poole (2012). This can be applied in the scenario here, the language must be objectively scrutinized as this may affect whether Gary was issuing a counter-offer or a mere request for further information. This is critical as a counter offer voids the original offer in its entirety and therefore it would be determined that there is no valid contract between Gary and …show more content…
The defendant original wanted to sell a farm for £1000; however the claimant made a counter offer of £950. The Counter offer was not accepted so the claimant subsequently tried to accept the original offer. The defendant then refused to honour the original offer. The claimant bought an action of specific performance against the defendant, but was unsuccessful because as soon as a counter offer is made this immediately voids the original offer in its entirety (Duxbury 2011) and the offerer is not bound by the original offer. Nevertheless due to differentiation of interpretation of language and conduct, both potential outcomes must be analysed and then assessed which course of action would be most