In which case was it stated the acceptance must be a "mirror image"?
Hyde v Wrench [1940]. Tried to buy land valued at £1000 for £950. No binding contract.
2 of 17
In which case was it shown that acceptance must be full and complete?
Stevenson v McClean [1880], sale of steel - tried to pay in intervals.
3 of 17
In which case was it shown that acceptance must be effectively communicated?
Entores v Miles Far Eastern [1955]. TelEx, using telephone to send communications, claimant wished to sue for breach of contract, reinforces communication rule.
4 of 17
In which case was it shown that silence does not amount to valid acceptance?
Felthouse v Bindley [1862] Sale of a horse, "if I hear no more I will assume the horse mine".
5 of 17
What does the postal rule state?
Acceptance valid the moment it goes into the postal system. Noted in: Adams v Lindsell [1818].
6 of 17
What are the two limitations of the postal rule?
May be excluded by the offeror Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974]. Needs to be reasonable usage Henthorn v Fraser [1892].
7 of 17
Which rule has found favour concerning emails, as shown in Keong v DigilandMall.com Pte [2004].
The receipt rule.
8 of 17
What is the receipt rule?
No valid acceptance until the offeror has it in their mail.
9 of 17
Why is the receipt rule controversial?
Because of spam and junk emails.
10 of 17
What ruling is used concerning acceptances with websites?
The receipt rule. The EC Directive Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013).
11 of 17
What exception was there with Argos and acceptances?
Argos said the acceptance was formed when the goods were shipped.
12 of 17
Can you accept a contract by your conduct?
Yes. Recently shown in RTS Flexible System v Molkerei Alois Muller [2010].
13 of 17
Are you bound to a contract if you sign it without reading?
Yes. L Estrange v Graucob [1934], Scammell v Ouston [1941], Hillas v Arcos [1932].
14 of 17
What meaning do the terms "letter of intent" and "subject to contract" hold in contract law?
They have no meaning in English contract law.
15 of 17
What are the Last Shot Doctrine or Battle of the Forms?
Terms and conditions. Shown in Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corp [1975].
16 of 17
When courts find ___ in accordance with a contract, they are reluctant to nullify the contract.
Conduct.
17 of 17
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
In which case was it stated the acceptance must be a "mirror image"?
Back
Hyde v Wrench [1940]. Tried to buy land valued at £1000 for £950. No binding contract.
Card 3
Front
In which case was it shown that acceptance must be full and complete?
Back
Card 4
Front
In which case was it shown that acceptance must be effectively communicated?
Back
Card 5
Front
In which case was it shown that silence does not amount to valid acceptance?
Comments
No comments have yet been made