Offer

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • OFFER
    • failure of a precondition
      • FINANCING LTD V STIMSON - if a main term of the offer is not fulfilled or is significantly altered, it ends the offer
    • express offers
      • TAYLOR V LAIRD - There must be an express offer
    • unilateral offers
      • CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO. - 1) you can have a unilateral offer. 2) Unilateral offers can be accepted by conduct. 3) It's not a mere puff if there is evidence of legal intent
    • auctions
      • HARRIS V NICKERSON / S57 SALE OF GOODS ACT - an advert to hold an auction is an I2T
    • implied offers
      • WILKIE V LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD - an offer can be implied from conduct
      • BOWERMAN V ABTA - an offer can be implied from circumstance
    • 10 ways an offer can end
      • STEVENSON V MCLEAN - request for more information is not a counter offer - e.g. enquiring as to whether credit terms are available
      • BRADBURY V MORGAN - death ends offer of a personal nature
      • DICKINSON V DODDS - an offer may be revoked via a reliable third party
      • ROUTLEDGE V GRANT - an offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance, even if initially stated to remain open for a specified period
      • SHUEY V US - a unilateral offer must be revoked by the same method used to make the offer in the first place
      • BYRNE V VAN TIENHOVEN - an offer cannot be revoked after acceptance
      • BUTLER V EX-CELL-O-CORP - in exchange of letters with standard terms, "he who fires the last shot wins" - offer is on the terms of the last letter which is accepted by conduct
      • ERRINGTON V ERRINGTON - where acceptance is an ongoing act, the offeror cannot revoke the offer
      • RAMSGATE HOTEL V MOTEFIORE - an offer will lapse after a reasonable time if a limit is not specified
      • HYDE V WRENCH - a counter offer extinguishes the original offer
    • invitation to treat
      • PARTRIDGE V CRITTENDEN - an advertisement is an I2T
      • Untitled
      • FISHER V BELL - display of goods in shop window is I2T
      • HARVEY V FACEY - statement of price is an I2T
      • PHARMACEU-TICAL SOCIETY OF GB V BOOTS - display in self-service shop is I2T
      • GIBSON V MANCHESTER CC - negotiations are I2T unless there is a clear offer
    • advertisements
      • Untitled
      • LEFKOWITZ V GMSS - an advertisement with terms attached is an offer
      • Untitled

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract law resources »