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;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Hyde v Wrench (1840) |
Mirror Image Rule Acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer |
|
|
Boulton v Jones (1857) R v Clarke (1927) |
Acceptance must be made in response to the offer Shop was purchased, order was sent addressed to the old owner, new owner fulfilled the order. No contract was made as must be accepted by the offeree Gave information about a criminal then tried to gain a reward he didn't know about at the time. Act did not rely on the offer. |
|
|
Williams v Cawardine (1833) |
Acceptance must be made in response to the offer On her deathbed she gave information about a criminal. She knew about the offer. She did it to die with a clear conscience but claimed the reward. It was held that her intentions did not matter, only that she knew about the reward so she was entitled to it. |
|
|
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) |
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror Offered to buy a horse and said if no more was heard he would consider the horse to be his. Found no contract was made as silence can never amount to acceptance. |
|
|
Taylor v Allon (1966) Intense Investments Ltd v Development Ventures Ltd and Another (2006) |
In a small minority of cases acceptance can be discerned from the conduct of the offeree In the Intense investments case the lender's action of transferring the money in response to the offer of a loan amounts to acceptance by conduct. |
|
|
Powell v Lee (1908) |
Where a third party has authorisation, they may accept a contract on behalf of the offeree Applied for head of a committee, the committee decided to give it to him but an unauthorised person communicated that. The committee then changed their mind and hired someone else. Seen to be no contract as the deliverer of the acceptance was not authorised |
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) |
Performance of a unilateral contract will amount to acceptance Acceptance will not need to be communicated in this case as that need for acceptance is waived or implied by conduct. |
|
|
The Brimnes (1975) Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) |
The offeror's conduct can also be taken into account For example if a telex of acceptance is sent during office hours it is the offeror's fault he did not receive it. Or if a fax is sent but there's no ink in the machine it is the offeror's fault and acceptance is valid |
|
|
Adams v Lindsell (1818) Re London and Northern Bank, ex parte Jones (1900) Henthorn v Fraser (1892) |
The Postal Rule Acceptance takes place from the moment it was properly posted Does not work if the letter was, for example, handed to a postman to post Henthorn posted a letter after the revocation had been posted but as it took effect on posting the acceptance was valid |
|
|
Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Contimar (1953) |
An incorrectly addressed letter ousted the postal rule and meant that the acceptance was only effective when it was actually received |
|
|
Howell Securities v Hughes (1974) |
An option was granted by the defendant "exercisable by notice in writing to [the defendant]" This ousted the postal rule as it said "in notice" which meant the acceptance was valid on receipt not on posting |
|
|
Dunmore v Alexander (1830) |
An offer was made and revocation was sent straight after by quicker post. They both arrived at the same time and the offer was successfully revoked. |
|
|
Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) The Brimnes (1975) |
With regards to instantaneous communication the acceptance is valid on receipt as this should be the same time as when it is sent. If it is sent outside office hours then it will take effect at the start of the next working day |
|
|
Tinn & Hoffman (1873) |
If a prescribed mode is attempted to be made but fails and instead only excludes certain modes the acceptance may come by any means that is as advantageous. Test for as advantageous: Is there a written record? Is it as fast? |
|
|
Yates Building Co Ltd v Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd (1975) |
Where the prescribed mode is for the benefit of the offeree he may choose to waiver his right and send acceptance by another method. |
