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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Grainger v Gough (1896) |
Notice in a catalogue |
|
|
Fisher v Bell ( 1961) |
Display in a shop window |
|
|
Loftus v Roberts ( 1902) |
Uncertain as to terms |
|
|
Harvey v Facet 1893 |
An offer or invitation |
|
|
Hyde v Wrench 1840 |
A counter offer |
|
|
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East corporation 1955 |
All communication expect post is instantaneous communication, lord Denning |
|
|
Byrne v Van Teinhoven 1880 |
Offer can be revoke any time before acceptance |
|
|
Quenerduaine v Cole 1883 |
Mode of offer acceptance |
|
|
Adams v Lindsell |
Post address rule |
|
|
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwareenchsndel Gmbh (SSSG) 1982 |
In absence of precise instructions about the mode of acceptance shall be based on business practice |
|
|
Tenax Steamship co. V Ownfers of the motor vessel barimnes (The Barimnes)1975 |
The time of receipt does not have to be the time the mgs is actually read |
|
|
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company 1877 |
Offer and acceptance have been communicated by conduct |
|
|
Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879 |
Postal communication even if the letter never received but the address should be corect |
|
|
Henthorn v Fraser 1892 |
An acceptance takes precedence over the withdrawal posted at the same time. The withdrawal will be effective only after receipt to offeree |
|
|
Tinn v Hoffman & co 1873 |
The parties can contract out the postal rule by determining in the offer the method and timing of the communicating acceptance |
|
|
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1974 |
It is unlikely that the postal rule will be abandoned, however it's application is likely to remain limited |
|
|
Partridge v Crittenden 1968 |
If the clear limits are defined in the advertisement than it's a unilateral offer in place of ITT |
|
|
Lefkowicz v Great Minneapolis Stores 1957 |
Three mink coats are available at special price, this amounted to a unilateral offer |
|
|
Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd 1996 |
A unilateral offer accepted by the customer in contracting with the ABTA members |
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd 1952 |
It is the shopkeeper that is free to accept or reject this offer when the goods are bought to the checkout for payment |
|
|
Shuey v United States 1875 |
It so sufficient to communicate by the same method as the original offer |
|
|
Dickinson v Dodds 1876 |
Revocation can be effective if it is communicated by someone other than the offeree as long as the source of information is reliable |
|
|
Felthouse v Bindley 1862 |
Silence in not acceptance |
|
|
Butler Machine Tool co. Ltd v Ex-Cello-O-Corp England Ltd 1979 |
The plaintiff was trading of the defendant's terms, there was no enforcement right to change the contractual price. |
|
|
Tekdata interconnections v Amphenol Ltd 2009 |
The court adopted the battle of forms and applied the last shot method. Some terms can be excused if both parties demonstrate that they were not intended to be bind by such a term. |
|
|
GHSP Inc V AB Electronics Ltd 2011 |
Neither of the parties terms formed the contract and the contract would be governed by the relevant default provision of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 |
|
|
Cheers Jim Keong v Digilandmail.com pte 2004 |
Website advertisement is no different to a display of goods in a shop |
|
|
Blackpool and fylde Aero club Ltd v Blackpool BC 1990 |
The council has mentioned a certain method to submit the offer but failed to adhere to the process (the acceptance was in personal till midnight at a certain date but the office was closed at 7pm). Court may find a collateral contract. |
|
|
Pratt Contractors Ltd v Transit NZ 2003 |
An obligation to act fairly and in good faith in operation a proscribed tendering process |
