Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
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 Digilandmall.com |
|
|
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) |
