Evaluation: Offer + Acceptance - Contract Law

Question 1

Offer - Is a display an offer or invitation to treat? (Point)

Answer 1

The issue of whether something is an offer or invitation to treat is confusing for the parties.

Question 2

Offer - Is a display an offer or invitation to treat? (Evidence)

Answer 2

Fisher v Bell and Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist - clarified the law so that items on display are an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Question 3

Offer - Is a display an offer or invitation to treat? (Explain)

Answer 3

This means customers cannot demand to buy items on display as they’re not another for sale. Instead customer offers to buy and shop decides whether or not to accept.

Question 4

Offer - Is a display an offer or invitation to treat? (Link)

Answer 4

Advantage - prevents underage customers from buying alcohol
Disadvantage - Fisher v Bell, shopkeeper avoided conviction for offering sale of flick-knives when that was his intention.

Question 5

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Point)

Answer 5

Whether an advert is an offer for sale or an invitation to treat is confusing.

Question 6

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Evidence)

Answer 6

Advert in Partridge v Crittenden was not an offer. However, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball advert was considered to be a valid offer.

Question 7

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Explain)

Answer 7

Crittenden avoided being convicted for offering sale of wild bird even though that was the intention.

Question 8

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Link)

Answer 8

Usually if an advert seems to be making offer to public, person would only have successful claim if there was misrepresentation or breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Question 9

Offer - Problems with counter offers (Point)

Answer 9

A counter offer will end original offer but conduct of offeree can be considered acceptance even if not signed.

Question 10

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Evidence)

Answer 10

(As seen in Reveille v Independent LLC v Anoteck International Ltd)

Question 11

Offer - Is an advert an offer or an invitation to treat? (Explain+Link)

Answer 11

Many business agreements may go through many offers and counter offers until both parties agree and law recognises this.

Question 12

Offer - Has the offer ended? (Point)

Answer 12

Offers don’t end even after the offeror has died (if offeree doesn’t know about death). Law is only clear when offeror specifies length of time which doesn’t always happen.

Question 13

Offer - Has the offer ended? (Evidence)

Answer 13

Court says offer has ended if not accepted in reasonable time - Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore acceptance communicated 5 months later.

Question 14

Offer - Has the offer ended? (Explain)

Answer 14

Courts didn’t clarify how long ‘reasonable’ is.

Question 15

Offer - Has the offer ended? (Link)

Answer 15

Offeree could argue they thought 5 months was reasonable whereas offeror may argue that it is excessive.

Question 16

Acceptance - Should silence and conduct be considered acceptance? (Point)

Answer 16

The decision that parties in Felthouse v Bindley didn’t have a contract could be considered unfair, especially if both parties were happy with arrangement that acceptance would be assumed.

Question 17

Acceptance - Should silence and conduct be considered acceptance? (Evidence 1)

Answer 17

(The offeror said something along the lines of ‘if I hear nothing back, I will assume you have accepted’).

Question 18

Acceptance - Should silence and conduct be considered acceptance? (Evidence+Explain)

Answer 18

Could be argued Mrs Carlill’s acceptance was silent in Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball. She never communicated acceptance but conduct was enough.

Question 19

Acceptance - Should silence and conduct be considered acceptance? (Link)

Answer 19

Silence is only an acceptable form of acceptance where there is some conduct too.

Question 20

Acceptance - Is the postal rule outdated? (Point)

Answer 20

Using the post to accept offers seems an old fashioned measure. Can be problematic when things are delayed or even lost in the post. Not possible to prove date of postage.

Question 21

Acceptance - Is the postal rule outdated? (Evidence/Explain)

Answer 21

Yates v Pulleyn - Lord Denning thought that the request to return acceptance by recorded delivery did not prevent letter being valid even though offeree decided to send it through normal post.

Question 22

Acceptance - Is the postal rule outdated? (Link)

Answer 22

Therefore, the reliance on the postal rule in an era dominated by immediate communication methods raises questions about its practicality and relevance in modern contract law.

Question 23

Acceptance - Is the postal rule too strict? (Point)

Answer 23

Postal rule favours the offeree and is therefore strict on offeror.

Question 24

Acceptance - Is the postal rule too strict? (Evidence)

Answer 24

The acceptance is made when letter is posted (Adam’s v Lindsell).

Question 25

Acceptance - Is the postal rule too strict? (Explain/Link)

Answer 25

But offeror will be unaware when this has happened.

Question 26

Acceptance - How has the law adapted to modern forms of communication? (Point)

Answer 26

The courts have been reluctant to apply the postal rule to modern forms of communication.

Question 27

Acceptance - How has the law adapted to modern forms of communication? (Evidence)

Answer 27

Entores v Miles Far Easy Corporation - acceptance was communicated when a telex was received rather than when it was sent.

Question 28

Acceptance - How has the law adapted to modern forms of communication? (Explain)

Answer 28

This doesn’t follow postal rule.

Question 29

Acceptance - How has the law adapted to modern forms of communication? (Link)

Answer 29

The EU has given guidance relating to contracts made online but clarification from courts is lacking, especially since technology changes so quickly.

Question 30

Consideration - Do we need consideration? (Point)

Answer 30

If there is an obvious agreement between parties why is this so important

Question 31

Consideration - Do we need consideration? (Evidence)

Answer 31

Professor Atiyah thought an offer, acceptance and iclr is enough for valid contract.

Question 32

Consideration - Do we need consideration? (Explain)

Answer 32

Law Revision Committee said: • a written promise should always be binding (with/without consideration) • past consideration should be allowed • performing an existing duty should be good consideration • a creditor should be bound by a promise to accept part-payment of a debt

Question 33

Consideration - Do we need consideration? (Link)

Answer 33

These proposals (by Law Revision Committee) have not been introduced.

Question 34

Consideration - adequate and sufficient (Point)

Answer 34

The law is not concerned with whether a bargain is fair. Anything of value is considered sufficient consideration.

Question 35

Consideration - adequate and sufficient (Evidence)

Answer 35

Paying £1 for a house is sufficient consideration but not adequate. The widow’s payment of £1 per year was consideration in Thomas v Thomas.

Question 36

Consideration - adequate and sufficient (Explain/Link)

Answer 36

The value need not be adequate and what is adequate is a decision for parties themselves.

Question 37

Consideration - Past consideration (Point)

Answer 37

Decision in Re McArdle is viewed by many as unfair as there was a promise of payment for work already done but they changed their minds and wouldn’t pay.

Question 38

Consideration - Past consideration (Explain)

Answer 38

Court wouldn’t enforce payment as there was no consideration at time of agreement to pay. Main justification of this rule is some may take advantage of this and force people into contracts for goods and services they didn’t order.

Question 39

Consideration - Past consideration (Evidence)

Answer 39

However, Re Casey’s Patent - implied promise of payment for work already done was enforced by courts.

Question 40

Consideration - Past consideration (Link)

Answer 40

Difference between these cases - McArdle wasn’t offered payment until after work whereas in Casey, employee was promised a share while working on it.