Offer and Acceptance
- Created by: Launston
- Created on: 14-05-14 09:26
View mindmap
- Offer and Acceptance
- Offer
- Expression of willingness to contract on certain terms
- Intention that promise should bind immediately on acceptance
- Distinguish from invitations to treat
- Shop windows - Fisher v Bell
- Self-service store - Pharmaceutical society v Boots
- Adverts - Partridge v Crittenden
- BUT Carlill v CSBC - promise of money in bank and clear terms used
- Tenders - Spencer v Harding
- Blackpool & Fylde - entitled to have tender considered but no obligation to accept
- Justifications: freedom of contract for shopkeeper and allows customer to change mind
- Adverts - Partridge v Crittenden
- Self-service store - Pharmaceutical society v Boots
- Language is relevant
- Gibson v Manchester City Council and Storer v MCC
- Shop windows - Fisher v Bell
- Expression of willingness to contract on certain terms
- Acceptance
- Made in response to and match the terms of the offer
- Cannot accept an unknown offer - Gibbons v Proctor
- Does not match offer = counter offer - Hyde v Wrench
- Request for further information - Stevenson v Mclean
- Battle of the Forms - Butler v Ex-Cell-O - last shot rule
- Tekdata v Amphenol - Traditional offer and acceptance analysis unless documents showed other intention
- Does not match offer = counter offer - Hyde v Wrench
- Cannot accept an unknown offer - Gibbons v Proctor
- Must be communicated
- Waived in unilateral contracts - Carlill
- Silence cannot constitute acceptance - Felthouse v Bindley
- Acceptance can be by conduct - Trentham v Archital
- Silence cannot constitute acceptance - Felthouse v Bindley
- Methods of communication
- In person, must be HEARD
- The postal rule - Adams v Lindsell
- Use of post must be reasonable - Henthorn v Fraser
- May get lost in post, burden on offeror - Household v Grant
- Exceptions: must be reasonable to use, if offeror stipulates actual communication it won't apply - Holwell Securities v Hughes
- Method proscribed by offeror must be used - Manchester Diocesan
- Exceptions: must be reasonable to use, if offeror stipulates actual communication it won't apply - Holwell Securities v Hughes
- May get lost in post, burden on offeror - Household v Grant
- Use of post must be reasonable - Henthorn v Fraser
- Waived in unilateral contracts - Carlill
- Instantaneous methods
- Entores v Miles Far East - must ensure it is heard
- Brinkibon - acceptance effective when and where received
- Email? - Thomas v BPE Solicitors
- Brinkibon - acceptance effective when and where received
- Entores v Miles Far East - must ensure it is heard
- Made in response to and match the terms of the offer
- Revocation
- Byrne v Van Tienhoven - before acceptance, must be communicated, postal rule does not apply
- Cannot revoke during acceptance - Errington v Errington
- Withdrawing unilateral offers by same channel - Shuey v US
- Cannot revoke during acceptance - Errington v Errington
- Firm Offers can still be revoked before time - Routledge v Grant
- Also by rejection or lapse of time
- Byrne v Van Tienhoven - before acceptance, must be communicated, postal rule does not apply
- Offer
Comments
No comments have yet been made