Offer and Acceptance (Case Law)
- Created by: Katie Woolnough
- Created on: 24-05-17 01:12
| E | Q | X | T | H | D | Y | N | R | C | N | K | F | R | V | S | W | M | N | X | S |
| Y | I | D | S | O | E | O | C | H | E | W | L | R | X | V | T | E | S | I | M | I |
| X | S | J | C | L | N | U | U | R | N | E | U | G | B | P | N | B | U | M | C | O |
| E | F | J | R | W | N | I | P | A | T | S | U | N | X | R | E | Q | X | J | M | I |
| E | W | B | I | E | Y | S | H | C | R | D | F | I | U | I | M | S | Y | T | J | N |
| C | W | B | E | L | V | J | B | N | O | D | T | P | U | T | T | Y | P | U | X | V |
| N | V | U | V | L | H | D | B | O | V | O | V | P | Y | U | S | F | B | I | B | P |
| A | S | C | E | S | A | Q | M | S | I | D | X | I | R | D | E | A | I | Q | M | O |
| N | B | H | N | E | N | I | A | L | N | V | C | H | G | A | V | V | M | T | S | R |
| I | B | W | B | C | C | D | O | O | C | N | H | S | V | I | N | J | R | W | M | M |
| F | M | E | R | U | O | D | U | H | I | O | G | L | Q | X | I | W | R | O | U | N |
| N | A | E | O | R | C | H | V | C | A | S | V | A | E | S | A | N | S | Y | R | P |
| U | M | K | T | I | K | R | W | I | L | N | S | I | M | J | L | E | F | I | P | V |
| G | K | I | H | T | J | H | P | N | E | I | C | D | N | T | E | I | M | J | T | B |
| O | G | N | E | I | D | S | T | T | S | K | N | N | U | P | V | E | G | W | B | A |
| H | O | K | R | E | D | N | F | S | T | C | N | O | I | U | R | O | U | I | V | J |
| S | J | E | S | S | K | B | A | E | A | I | S | M | A | N | A | T | M | T | Y | U |
| D | A | O | K | E | Y | I | B | R | T | D | I | N | R | D | H | W | U | P | O | F |
| H | F | N | B | K | T | X | B | C | E | S | N | H | A | Q | N | V | C | S | D | V |
| Q | K | G | U | R | W | W | I | I | S | L | J | N | W | O | O | U | H | F | Y | Q |
| D | R | B | L | H | E | B | T | X | W | T | G | L | M | F | S | D | K | F | C | S |
Clues
- 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. (7, 11)
- 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 (8, 8, 2)
- 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, 1, 7)
- Chadwick: we determine whether an offer has been made by subjecting it to an objective test (5, 9, 2)
- 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. (5, 3, 5)
- No contract will arise if the offeree knows the offer was not for them - usually in cases of fraudulent impersonation (6, 7)
- Notice was sufficiently clear to show that the postal rule was not operative - explicit exclusion. Russell LJ: so the acceptance must be communicated (7, 10)
- 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 (13, 7)
- Telex received after business hours - Gatehouse J: when the recipient's office next opens for business that is the moment of receipt (7, 8)
- 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. (9, 1, 5)
Comments
No comments have yet been made