1. Agreement

Question 0

Storer v Manchester City Council

Answer 0

MCC’s letter enclosing an agreement for sale in stating that it ‘will’ sign the document is sufficiently clear and certain to constitute an offer

Question 1

Gibson v Manchester City Council

Answer 1

MCC’s letter stating that it ‘may be prepared to sell’ lacks clarity and certainty to constitute offer

Question 2

Fisher v Bell

Answer 2

Display a flick knife in shop window was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale

Question 3

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists

Answer 3

Display of goods on shelves was an invitation to treat

Question 4

Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 4

Ad is invitation to treat

Question 5

Grainger & Son v Gough

Answer 5

Wine list circulated by merchant is invitation to treat

Obiter: if supplier is also manufacturer, there may be an inference that there is an offer for sale on the basis that the manufacturer could in theory have unlimited supplies

Question 6

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Answer 6

Ad may be a unilateral offer

Question 7

Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada

Answer 7

Invitation to tender that states commitment to accept highest bid amounts to valid offer

Question 8

Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool BC

Answer 8

Invitation to tender may amount to offer to consider (rather than accept) a bid fulfilling certain stipulations

Question 9

Payne v Cave

Answer 9

Auctioneer’s request for bids is invitation to treat

Revocation possible at any time before acceptance

Question 10

Taylor v Laird

Answer 10

Offer has no validity unless communicated to offeree

Question 11

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 11

Counter-offer constitutes rejection - therefore not possible to accept original offer after making counter-offer

Acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with terms of offer

Question 12

Stevenson, Jacques v McLean

Answer 12

Inquiry as to whether different payment terms would be possible is a rfi, not counter-offer

Question 13

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Answer 13

Postal rule doesn’t apply to revocation

Question 14

Dickenson v Dodds

Answer 14

Revocation by 3rd party may be valid

Question 15

Great Northern Railway Co v Witham

Answer 15

For unilateral contracts, revocation is possible any time prior to performance of required act

Question 16

Errington v Errington and Woods

Answer 16

Revocation not possible where offeree has partly performed obligation, and is willing and able to complete

Question 17

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

Answer 17

Offer may lapse through passage of time

Question 18

Financings Ltd v Stimson

Answer 18

Non-fulfilment of condition in offer may cause offer to lapse

Question 19

Boulton v Jones

Answer 19

Offer can only be accepted by person to whom it is addressed

Question 20

R v Clarke

Answer 20

Offer is not accepted by doing required act in ignorance of offer

Question 21

Williams v Cowardine

Answer 21

Performance of required act is valid acceptance of unilateral offer, provided there is knowledge of the offer, even if act is performed for different motive

Question 22

Felthouse v Bindley

Answer 22

Offeror may not stipulate that he will take silence to be acceptance

Question 23

Taylor v Allon

Answer 23

Offeree’s conduct may amount to acceptance

Question 24

Powell v Lee

Answer 24

Acceptance communicated by third party without authority is not valid

Question 25

Daulia v Four Milbank Nominees

Answer 25

Acceptance of unilateral offer requires complete performance Offeror may revoke at any time up to point that act has been fully performed, subject to qualification that, one performance has commenced, offeror is under implied obligation not to prevent thatvperformance

Question 26

Adams v Lindsell

Answer 26

The postal rule

Question 27

Howell Securities v Hughes

Answer 27

Postal rule may be ousted

Question 28

Re London and Northern Bank, ex parte Jones

Answer 28

Acceptance is not properly posted by putting it into the hands of a postman who is only authorised to deliver letters

Question 29

Henthorn v Fraser

Answer 29

Letter accepting an offer which is posted before the revocation is received (but after it is sent) is valid

Question 30

Household Fire Insurance v Grant

Answer 30

Postal rule applies even where acceptance is delayed or lost in the post

Question 31

Quenerduaine v Cole

Answer 31

Postal rule doesn't apply where it is unreasonable to use post

Question 32

Getreide v Contimar

Answer 32

Postal rule displaced where acceptance incorrectly addressed

Question 33

Entores v Miles

Answer 33

For instantaneous communication, actual communication is required and the postal rule doesn't apply

Question 34

The Brimnes

Answer 34

Telex sent during ordinary office hours but not seen by office staff until the following Monday held to be effective when received (rather than when read)

Question 35

Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping

Answer 35

Telex sent outside office hours held to be effective as of the start business on the next working day

Question 36

Thomas v BPE Solicitors

Answer 36

Meaning of office hours is dependent on context

Question 37

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments

Answer 37

Where offeror prescribes made of acceptance but does not stipulate that only that mode shall be binding, any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will suffice

Question 38

Tinn v Hoffman

Answer 38

Where other modes not expressly excluded, any mode equally advantageous to offeror will be sufficient - key issue usually speed

Question 39

Yates v Pulleyn

Answer 39

Stipulation that acceptance be by recorded delivery could be waived, since this was for the benefit of the offeree

Question 40

Well Barn Farming v Backhouse

Answer 40

Presumption to create legal relations in commercial contracts

Question 41

Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros

Answer 41

Presumption of intention to create legal relations in commercial context may be rebutted

Question 42

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 42

Presumption is no intention to create legalrelations in domestic/social contexts

Question 43

Peck v Lateau

Answer 43

Presumption of non-intention to create legal relations may be rebutted in domestic/social context