Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

47 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Smith v Hughes
An objective test is to be used in determining whether consensus ad idem is present.

-Promisee objectivity

Hartog v Colin & Shields
Some subjective element is used, however, in the case of 'snapping up' bargains when one knows the other party did not intend.

-Also Chwee Kin Keong v

Storer v Manchester City Council
Parties to negotiations may, by their words and conduct, make it clear that they intend to be bound even if there are other terms yet to be agreed.

-'will' sell, contract present from objective viewpoint

GrecoAir Inc v Tilling
A valid offer requires the party making it to show objective intent to be bound.
Harvey v Facey
A mere statement of minimum price one would be willing to sell at does not amount to an offer, but supply of information (response to an inquiry)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
An advertisement for a unilateral contract is likely to be construed as a unilateral offer made to the world; but it requires strong intent to be bound (showing public it is an offer to be acted upon) and with clearly defined terms and conditions.

-Applied in Bowerman v ABTA (monies paid would be reimbursed in case of insolvency)

Partridge v Crittenden
Generally, an advertisement for the sale of goods is only an invitation to treat.
Williams v Carwadine
Advertisements promising rewards for information = offers, motives not impt

-Contrast with R v Clarke (Australian)< where there is no acceptance if there is no knowledge/motive of the reward

Gibbons v Proctor
Advertisements promising rewards for lost property = offers

-For performance, knowledge of the offer's acceptance is not important; but when the information reached the offeror, offeree knew of offer's existence

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots
Display of goods = ITT; acceptance only takes place at the counter.
Fisher v Bell
Display of weapon = ITT, not criminally liable under statute, 'offer for sale or hire'
Harris v Nickerson
Catalogue advertising an auction = ITT
Payne v Cave
Call for bids = ITT

-Lots are ITT, bids are offers, fall of the hammer is acceptance.

Sale of Goods Act s.57(2)
Auction sales are governed by legislative authority
Warlow v Harrison
Auctions 'without reserve' would result in breach if highest bid is rejected.
Barry v Davies
There is a contract between the buyer and seller but collateral contract with auctioneer.
Spencer v Harding
Person who makes invitation to tender is not bound to accept any response to the tender.
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co. of Canada (CIT) Ltd
If the offeror states that they will accept the highest or lowest offer, the certainty and clarity of intention can make it an offer which can give rise to a contract if accepted.
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council
Parties issuing these invitations to treat are bound to consider/inspect a tender submitted properly before the deadline.
Taylor v Laird
An offer must be communicated to the offeree; no party can be bound by an offer of which they were unaware.
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company
For unilateral offers, an offer may be communicated with the world at large until the requested act is performed.
Routledge v Grant
An offer may be revoked at anytime before acceptance (unless if there is a collateral contract working around the main contract).
Errington v Errington & Woods
Once the offeree has commenced performance, the offer is irrevocable even if performance is incomplete
Daulia v Four Milbank Nominees
The offeror cannot prevent the condition from being satisfied as soon as performance begins.
Dickinson v Dodds
Revocation may be made by a third party subject to two conditions:

1) The party is a reliable source of information.

2) The party is one both parties can rely on.

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore
Offers will lapse on the expiration of the time stated for the lapse or upon the expiration of a reasonable time, which depends on the circumstances.
Day Morris Associates v Voyce
Acceptance = A final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer

Gibson v Manchester City Council
Mirror image: Clear acceptance must follow clear offer
Hyde v Wrench
A counter offer is not acceptance, and it kills off the original offer.
Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean
A mere request for information is not a counter offer.
Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-O
Traditional approach of determining offer and acceptance > Denning's examining of correspondence to find agreement of material terms approach with a reasonable implication. 'Last shot' rule.

-A contract is concluded on the terms submitted by the party who is the last to communicate those terms before performance commences.

Tekdata Interconnections v Amphenol
Traditional offer and acceptance analysis should be applied in battle of the forms (but initially conduct was examined and Denning's approach was favoured)
RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei
Reasonable honest businessman test (looking at what makes commercial sense overall) --> It is possible for an agreement 'subject to contract' to become legally binding if parties later agree to waive that condition (or by conduct).
Immingham Storage Co Ltd v Clear Plc
The phrase 'subject to contract' creates a strong but not conclusive presumption that parties do not yet want to be bound.

-But in the absence of that phrase and conduct leans towards 'subject to contract' conduct, the courts will still use traditional methods.

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co
A contract can be accepted by conduct of the parties (acting on the terms - but onus lies on party alleging - Blackburn J)
Day Morris Associates v Voyce
Acceptance by conduct must be clearly referable to the offer; the reasonable man test must give acceptance as the only conclusion - Black J
Felthouse v Hindley
The offeror may not stipulate silence as a mode of acceptance.
Adam v Lindsell
Postal Rule - Acceptance is valid once the letter is posted
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Revocation of an offer must be received and understood by the offeree to be effective. (discomfort in rule of Henthorn v Fraser)
Henthorn v Fraser
Acceptance on posting > withdrawal of same offer
Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co. v Grant
For acceptance on posting to be valid, the letter must be properly stamped and addressed.
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes
The postal rule is ousted if acceptance by post would 'lead to manifest inconvenience and absurdity'
Quenerduaine v Cole
The postal rule is also ousted if an equally expedient means of acceptance was required.-Can't reply to telegram by post.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
Acceptance using instantaneous means of communication occurs when effectively communicated to the offeror.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl
In modern times, it depends on the circumstances and sound business practice as well as a 'judgment of where the risks should lie' [Lord Wilberforce].
The Eastern Navigator
First instance decision: e-mail must not be bounced, if sender does not require confirmation of receipt he may not be able to prove it. -There would be no acceptance where an email is sent to a particular email address and the intended recipient has different for different divisions and departments, and the email address used was not agreed by the parties beforehand
Tinn v Hoffman & Co
Parties can contract out of the postal rule by determining in their offer the method and timing of communicating acceptance

-Also supports Hyde v Wrench (Counter-offer rule)