Offer

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 31-01-15 17:19
Bowerman v ABTA (1996)
Notices displayed in offices of members of ABTA stating that ABTA would reimburse holiday makers in certain circumstances. Held: there was contract between ABTA and holidaymakers as notice made it clear and imposing that there was unqualified obligat
1 of 28
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
There was a unilateral contract; ‘contract is made with that limited portion of the public who come forward and perform the condition on the faith of the advertisement’
2 of 28
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
Protection of Birds Act 1954, s 6(1) – advert is not offer for sale- it is an invitation to treat
3 of 28
Harris v Nickerson (1873)
Advert of auction = declaration of intent to hold a sale and did not amount to offer capable of being accepted and thus forming basis of contract; advert merely amounted to inv to treat
4 of 28
Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940)
Notice declaring that deck chairs are for hire = unilateral offer (a conditional promise)
5 of 28
Fisher v Bell (1961)
Lord Parker: ‘display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an inv to treat’
6 of 28
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
Held: goods on shelves = inv to treat and that it was customer who made offer to buy when presenting goods for payment at the cash desk
7 of 28
Harris v Nickerson (1873)
Goods on display at auctions = inv to treat
8 of 28
McManus v Fortescue (1907)
No contract results if auctioneer purports to accept a bid that is lower than reserve price
9 of 28
Barry v Heathcote Ball & Co (2000)
Held: no contract existed between vendor and claimant; collateral contract between auctioneer and claimant. Damage (diff between contract price and market price) under s 51(3) of SGA 1979 (£27,600)
10 of 28
Warlow v Harrison (1859)
Obiter dicta- a collateral contract (when without reserve) between auctioneer and highest bidder- auctioneer in calling for bids is offering to accept the highest bid and this offer is accepted by bidding
11 of 28
Spencer v Harding (1870)
Tenders usually inv to treat; thus, no obligation to sell to peron making highest tender
12 of 28
Great Northern Railway co v Witham (1873)
Held: just as plaintiffs not bound to order goods, def was only bound to supply goods actually ordered and could revoke standing offer at any time, provided revocation was communicated to other party, and only freed from future obligations (affirmed
13 of 28
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust (1986)
H of L: referential bid was ineffective. Fixed bid of plaintiffs should have been accepted
14 of 28
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)
Denning: ‘offer is made when proprietor of machine holds out as being ready to receive the money’; ‘acceptance takes place when the customer puts money in the slot’; customer is not bound by terms printed on ticket- comes too late- ‘contract has alre
15 of 28
Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939)
Held: no contract arises where one party makes an offer to another and he is aware that the other party is acting under a fundamental mistake as to the terms of the offer
16 of 28
Harvey v Facey (1893)
‘Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen, £900’- Held: not an offer, but a statement as to the minimum price required should he decide to sell
17 of 28
Clifton v Palumbo (1944)
‘nec for preparation of Schedule of Completion’= Held: mere preliminary statement as to price to enable negotiations to proceed
18 of 28
Stevenson v McLean (1880)
Plaintiff asking if he could have credit terms- Held: not counter-offer, but rather an enquiry, so binding contract made
19 of 28
Taylor v Laird (1856)
No contract as def was given no opportunity to either accept or reject his offer
20 of 28
Errington v Errington and Woods (1952)
Held: unilateral contract- son + daughter-in-law not contractually bound- but could not be ejected as they continued to pay their instalments
21 of 28
Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
Held: plaintiff should fail in aplliction as he was aware at the time of accepting that def no longer intended to sell house
22 of 28
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
Held: revocation only came into existence when arrived on 20th Oct (by which time the contract had already come into existence)
23 of 28
Pickfords v Celestica (2003)
Bilateral contract can be impliedly revoked by second offer
24 of 28
Routledge v Grant (1828)
Where a def made an offer to purchase plaintiff’s house and gave 6 weeks to accept offer, he was free to revoke and withdraw in 6 weeks
25 of 28
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Rejection occurred where a counter-offer is made, counter-offer destroys original offer
26 of 28
Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962)
Since damage occurred before acceptance the plaintiffs were not in a position to accept the offer which had lapsed due to fact that implied condition had not been complied with
27 of 28
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefione (1866)
Held: that the company could not accept the def’s offer to buy shares from June, in Nov, since that offer had lapsed
28 of 28

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)

Back

There was a unilateral contract; ‘contract is made with that limited portion of the public who come forward and perform the condition on the faith of the advertisement’

Card 3

Front

Partridge v Crittenden (1968)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Harris v Nickerson (1873)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940)

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »