conduct and acceptance Flashcards
when will an acceptance by accepted by conduct
may be inferred from conduct, provided clearly referable to the offer when viewed objectively by reference to a reasonable person in the position of, and with knowledge of, the offeror.
In which case was it held that conduct will only amount to an acceptance if it is clear that the offer did the act in question with the intention of accepting the offer
Day Morris Associated V Voyce
In which case was it held nah conduct amounted acceptance by taking delivery of coal
Brogden V Metropolitian Railway- (C submitted a draft contract for purchase of coal from D, who filled in certain terms and returned it marked ‘approved’. C never expressly agreed to the alterations, but accepted coal under the contract for 2 years. HL held that by taking delivery of the coal this amounted to an acceptance of D’s counter-offer)
Case where conduct by acceptance provided a solution for the battle of the forms
Britsh Road Service V Arthur V Crutchley Ltd (counter-offers for the storage of whisky. Hled that D made the last counter offer, impliedly accepted by conduct of C in handing over the goods.) This is sometimes known as the last shot doctrine.
Must the offer know of the offer in order to accept it? Approach regarding unilateral contracts
the offeree makes no promise and can be exposed to not burden. What is you do something not knowing of the reward- should you be able to claim the reward? Gibbons V Proctor- argues that the unknowing unilateral offeree who performs the requested act should be allowed to recover. But this raises the question of consideration.
Must the offer know of the offer in order to be able to accept it? The approach to bilateral contracts
acceptance in ignorance of the offer would expose the offered to duties and liabilities for breach without any opportunity to refuse. Taylor V Allan (temporary cover note attached to insurance renewal constituted offer to maintain insured, but was the fact of driving acceptance by conduct? CA held not because there was no evidence to show that D knew of the note and drove the car in reliance upon it, therefore guilty of driving uninsured. )
What did Williams v Carwardine say
(advert offering a £20 reward for information leading to the arrest of the murderer. The offeror was the deceaseds brother. C was severely assaulted by one Williams and believed she was not going live, made a voluntary statement, containing eveidence which lead to the conviction of Willaims for the murder. C actually lived, long enough to claim, be refusd and sue for the reward. Held that she had fulfilled the condition laid down in the advert and it was held that the court should not look at the motives.
What did R v Clarke say
reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of a police officer. C supplied the information knowing of the reward, but did it to clear his himself. The High Ct of Aus held no reward. C did not act in reliance upon or on the faith of the promised reward but in his own interest to clear his own name.
