Offer And Acceptance

Front 1

Harvey and Facey

Back 1

Telegram saying "lowest possible price" doesn't mean off but it is ITT

Not liable

Front 2

Boots V Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

Back 2

-Medicines on shelf doesn't mean Offer, but ITT

Front 3

Fisher V Bell

Back 3

-Goods on the shop window are Invitation to treat rather offer.

Front 4

Harris v Nickerson

Back 4

-Auction

-Advert

-Advertisement are invitation to treat.

-Information about event where bilateral offers can be made.

Front 5

Partridge v Critendon

Back 5

-Live bird sale

-Advert ITT, so not liability

Front 6

Carlill v Carbolic

Back 6

-Advert was an unilateral offer as it has explicit terms and offered reward through action

-acceptance by conduct

Front 7

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Back 7

-Revocation could only take effect once the other party knew about it.

-Revocation was too late was not effective.

Front 8

Dickinson v Dotts

Back 8

-Offered to sell house

-Knowing the offer didn't exist, accepted the offer

-Sued for breach of specific performance

-Offer was effectively revoked

-No contracts and Obligation

Front 9

Errington v Errington and Woods

Back 9

-Father in law/ house/ wedding gift/ died

-Daughter in law carried on Mortgage

-wife was entitled to remain in the house

-Unilateral Contract on full performance

Front 10

Shuey v USA

Back 10

-Capture of a criminal

-Didn't see the withdrawal

He completed the terms of the offer

Front 11

Adams v Lindsell

Back 11

-Acceptance is effective on posting

-acceptance will be effective at the time and place of posting even if offeror has no knowledge.

Front 12

Getreid v Contimar

Back 12

-Any mistakes made posting will take effect against the party who made mistake

Front 13

Holwell Securities v Hudges

Back 13

-Offeror states intention bound on receipt, postal rule will not apply

Front 14

Quenerduaine v Cole

Back 14

-Offer made by telegram and acceptance was by post

-Letter was seen as receipt

Front 15

Entore v Miles Far East Corp

Back 15

-Instant methods of communications are treated face to face.

-If there is fault in communication, contract will not be binding

Front 16

Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl

Back 16

-Time of acceptance will take place depends on sound of business

Front 17

Gibbons v Proctor

Back 17

-Policeman gave information to colleague

was entitled to the reward

Front 18

Fitch v Snedaker

Back 18

-Someone gave information about criminal and tried to claim it when they heard about it

Couldn't enforce

Front 19

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

Back 19

-Offered to buy share by June

-Company accepted in November

No contract made

-Specific performance by seller failed as lapse of time

Front 20

Bradbury v Morgan

Back 20

-Morgan stood as a guarantee/ died

-Morgan didn't need to be alive for enforcement of contract

-Contract will be terminated if offeror has died if specific performance is required.

Front 21

Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General Investments

Back 21

-The selling of land

-They responded to surveyor

Any Method of acceptances was acceptable as along as it was disadvantageous.

Front 22

Harvela v Royal Trust of Canada

Back 22

-Two parties to tender for a contract

Trying to find a guarantee way to win meant to breach of contract.

Front 23

Gibson v Manchester

Back 23

-Mirror Approach

-Sell of house

-"May"

-There was no contract, no clear offer that was mirrored by acceptance

-Political issue- changed of government

Front 24

Lidl v Hertford Foods

Back 24

-Sale of corn-beef (corn-beef crisis)

-No mention was made to any terms

-Only terms explicitly agreed on phone was put forward

Front 25

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway

Back 25

-Years of dealing together

-New set of terms

-Never formally accepted but carried on performing

Front 26

Trenthanm v Archital Luxfer

Back 26

-CONSENSUS

-Exchanged letters of standard terms

-No finial agreement

-Dispute

Courts- decided on terms contract was made

which in this case was perfomance