Offer and Acceptance (Case Law)

?
Crest Nicholson (CA)
Chadwick: we determine whether an offer has been made by subjecting it to an objective test
1 of 29
McCutcheon (HL)
Lord Reid: we decide what each was reasonably entitled to conclude from the attitude of the other
2 of 29
**Hartog
Argentine hare skins. A subjective approach because one party attempted to snap up the offer they knew the other party did not intend. Singleton: experts said price per piece; reasonable person would conclude it should be per piece (detached)
3 of 29
**Centrovincial Estates
Rent of £65k when it was meant to be £126k - tried to revoke the offer. D should have reasonably known that P made an error, but if they did not it would be wrong to say that the offeror could withdraw the unambiguous offer
4 of 29
Denny v Hancock
Boundary of shrubs concealing the real boundary and picket fence beyond. The plans were calculated to induce the false belief so it was a reasonable mistake
5 of 29
Tamplin v James
Believed 2 pieces of garden were included. Self-induced mistake.
6 of 29
Scrieven Brothers (KB)
Auctioneer selling hemp and tow. Unreasonable to expect buyer to see/rely on chalk marks on the ground when hemp and tow never usually have the same shipping marks
7 of 29
Gibson v Manchester CC (CA and HL)
(CA) Denning: look at whole correspondence. (HL) Diplock: some contracts don't form offer/acceptance, here we have a formal invitation for P to apply - no offer
8 of 29
*Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (QB)
The advertisement was a unilateraal offer, the terms of which were accepted by P. Bowen LJ: promisee objectivity. The offer is not to the whole world, merely those who perform. No notice needed.
9 of 29
*PGSB v Boots (QB)
Self-service. Somervell LJ: goods in aisles are an invitation to treat, the purchaser bringing items to the till is an offer and the pharmacist allowing the transaction is acceptance
10 of 29
Lefkowiz (SC of Minnesota)
Fur shawl in a newspaper. Offer in clear, definite and explicit terms - once someone has accepted they have no right to add new arbitrary terms
11 of 29
*Blackpool Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool CC (HL)
Invitation for tenders to operate flights. Bingham LJ: both parties intended to contract and it was only by mistake that they did not. Invitation was an offer and timely response was acceptance.
12 of 29
*Harvela Investments
An invitation to tender constitutes an offer. Sealed bids - the invitation to bid creates a presumed intention to create auction by fixed bids. The only price named was X (Templeman) and the lower unilateral contract is terminated.
13 of 29
Berry v Davies
Auctions - an auction without a reserve does not amount to a promise on the part of the auctioneer to sell the lot to the highest bidder. Request for bids is not an offer - and the bid is a discretionary promise.
14 of 29
Hyde v Wrench
Refused an offer to buy the farm because it was too low - Lord Langdale: you cannot revive an offer once rejected
15 of 29
Tekdata (CA)
Dyson LJ: traditional rules of offer and acceptance apply to the battle of the forms. We need certainty.
16 of 29
*Butler Machine
Battle of the forms (T&Cs) - Lord Denning: won by whoever objectively should be decided the victor. Lawson LJ: the seller's offer is rejected and killed, the counteroffer prevails. Bridge: "last shot fired" wins
17 of 29
Moran v University of Salford
University wrongly offers M a place. The piece of paper purports to be an offer which M accepts. Withdrawing is a breach and he is entitled to compensation if he is in good faith.
18 of 29
Shogun Finance
No contract will arise if the offeree knows the offer was not for them - usually in cases of fraudulent impersonation
19 of 29
Dickinson v Dodds
You cannot accept an offer if you know it has been directly or indirectly been withdrawn. The only legal protection lies if you had a binding option, but here it was merely a bare promise.
20 of 29
*British Steel
Goff: a contract following a letter of intent will be either an ordinary executory contract OR an 'if' contract ('if you do this, I will do this'). Even if not finalised there should be an obligation to pay a reasonable sum for services provided
21 of 29
Entores (QB)
Offer by telex. Denning LJ: acceptance of an offer drowned out by noise is no contract - there must be communicated acceptance.
22 of 29
Brinkibon
Approves Entores in English law (telex communications - acceptance is effective when communicated)
23 of 29
Mondial Shipping
Telex received after business hours - Gatehouse J: when the recipient's office next opens for business that is the moment of receipt
24 of 29
Felthouse
Nephew/uncle horse sale. Silence is no acceptance.
25 of 29
Holwell Securities
Notice was sufficiently clear to show that the postal rule was not operative - explicit exclusion. Russell LJ: so the acceptance must be communicated
26 of 29
Chwee Kin Keong
Laser printers - the acceptances will not give rise to contractual rights as they were "snapping up" - they were fully conscious of the mistake being made. Uses the objective test.
27 of 29
Errington
Denning LJ: the promise to give the house to the son/daughter-in-law is not a contractual one, but once the couple performs they are protected under promissory estoppel
28 of 29
Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co
Communicated by telegram. Lindley J: a state of mind not NOTIFIED cannot be regarded.
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Lord Reid: we decide what each was reasonably entitled to conclude from the attitude of the other

Back

McCutcheon (HL)

Card 3

Front

Argentine hare skins. A subjective approach because one party attempted to snap up the offer they knew the other party did not intend. Singleton: experts said price per piece; reasonable person would conclude it should be per piece (detached)

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Rent of £65k when it was meant to be £126k - tried to revoke the offer. D should have reasonably known that P made an error, but if they did not it would be wrong to say that the offeror could withdraw the unambiguous offer

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Boundary of shrubs concealing the real boundary and picket fence beyond. The plans were calculated to induce the false belief so it was a reasonable mistake

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »