Offer (and Acceptance) Flashcards
(20 cards)
Smith v Hughes [1871]
not on sheet
- racehorse trainer (D) bought oats from farmer (C)
- D wanted old instead of new oats (which is what C gave him)
- D refused to pay -> C sued for breach of contract
- trial judge directed jury that C is liable if he knew D wanted old oats
- Court held common intention is found objectively, not subjectively
Dickinson v Dodds [1876]
Mellish LJ: ‘once the person to whom the offer was made knows that the property has been sold to someone else, it is too late for him to accept the offer.’
- D offered to sell house to C for £800 -> offer open until day X
- day before X, C informed by agent that D sold house
- C delivered letter of acceptance to D on X but was rejected
- C sued D for breach of contract
- CoA held that C’s claim failed
- offer had been revoked because C had received notice from agent before acceptance -> 3rd party
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada [1986]
a ‘referential offer’ is invalid
- D invited C and L via telex to make offers by sealed tender -> stated that they bound themselves to the highest offer
- L made a referential bid -> offered sum of X or Y higher than highest bid
- L’s bid was accepted -> C sued D for breach
- HoL held that invitation to tender amounted to offer of unilateral contract
-> a referential bid was void
a referential bid defeats the purpose of a unilateral contract, where each bidder determines a specific price based on his own assessment
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
the advertisement was an offer to the whole world; and (ii) a unilateral contract was made with those who met the condition ‘on the faith of the advertisement’
- D sold ‘carbolic smoke ball’ and advertised it in a newspaper
- stated that £100 would be paid to any person who contracts disease after using the ball in a certain way
- C bought one of them, used it as directed, caught influenza -> sued for £100
- D argued that this had been too vague to be a definite offer, sets absurd terms
- CoA held that C’s claim was allowed
-> held that it was an offer to the whole world of a unilateral contract -> anyone who carried out the performance on which the conditional promise was formed can be considered to have accepted the contract - an extravagent promise is not a reason in law to not be bound by it
- communication of acceptance is not required further than the performance
- the inconvenience sustained by one party at the request is enough for consideration
an comparative example is like, if I offered a reward to help find my dog
PSGB v Boots [1953]
displays and advertisements are not offers (merely invitations to treat). The customer who makes the offer when they present the goods for payment at the cash desk.
- D (Boots) allowed shoppers to pick drugs off shelf and pay at till
- before, all medicine had been stored behind the counter
- C argued that a display of goods was an ‘offer’ -> placing a drug into one’s shopping basket amounted to ‘acceptance’ -> this put D in breach of Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933
- Court held that C was not in breach
- display of items for sale is not an offer -> an ITT -> the sale is completed at the till
- practical and policy considerations drive court to find offer and acceptance at certain points in a transaction
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]
confirmed decision in Boots case
- an advertisement by C appeared in magazine without mention of an offer for sale but contained words ‘Quality British Bramblefinch 25s each’
- C was charged by D on behalf of RSPCA for illegally offering for sale a live wild bird
- high court quashed conviction -> advertisements are generally an ITT
- a price list doesn’t amount to an offer
Spencer v Harding [1870]
not on sheet
- D sent out an advertisment inviting tenders to be made
- D didn’t promise to sell their goods to highest bidder
- C made highest tender, but D refused C’s offer
- Court held that D was not bound by contract to C
- whilst a tender is an offer, invitation to tender is an ITT
- The use of the word ‘offer’ is not determinative of it being an offer
Harvey v Facey [1893]
not on sheet
- C sent telegram to D stating “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid;”
- D replied with lowest price but didn’t answer the first question
- C replied that they agreed to buy the pen
- Privy Council held that there was no contract
- D had merely responded to a request for information, not an offer
- no evidence of an intention that D’s telegram was to be an offer
Entores v Miles Far Eastern Corp [1955]
Lord Denning’s three obiter examples re instantaneous communication (eg plane noise, telex running out of ink etc).
- C in London made an offer by telex to D in Amsterdam which D accepted
- when was the contract formed, to know whether Court has jurisdiction
- CoA held High Court has jurisdiction because contract was formed when acceptance was receieved in London, not when it was sent in Amsterdam
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments [1970]
M sent an acceptance of C’s tender to C’s surveyor rather than to the address in C’s tender
- C offered to sell school premises by tender
- C set out conditions of sale, stipulating tenders had to be sent to address specified in the tender
- C intended to accept D’s offer, but didn’t send the acceptance to the correct address
- C finally sent letter to correct address, but D withdrew offer on same day
- C sued for breach
- High Court held D was in breach of contract
- the acceptance letter sent to the surveyor was no less advantageous to D -> acceptance of any no less advantageous method is applicable for acceptance when a method of acceptance is stated without insisting that it is binding
Tinn v Hoffman is an example of this
Gibson v Manchester CC [1979]
the council’s conduct indicated its intention to accept G’s offer, but it had not yet completed the acceptance by communicating it to G
- Manchester CC (D) decided to sell council houses to tenants
- C applied for details & D said that they may be prepared to sell, but C needed to make a formal application to buy
- C returned application form for purchase to D
- D discontinued policy after party change (to Labour)
- C sued for breach of contract -> CoA held that there had been a binding contract for C -> parties had come to an agreemnt on everything material
- HoL said no. a contract needs offer and acceptance -> this was merely an ITT
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl [1983]
re instantaneous communication acceptance takes effect when and where it is actually brought to the attention of the offeror, unless one of the parties should reasonably have detected and rectified the communication failure
- C (buyers of steel bars) located in UK
- C sent telex of acceptance to D in Vienna
- C sued for breach in High Court -> does High Court have jurisdiction ? -> needed to establish where contract was formed
- HoL held High Court had no jurisdiction -> contract made in Vienna, that’s where acceptance was received
general rule is that contract is made when acceptance is received
Tenax v The Brimnes [1975]
Court of Appeal held that if the telex was sent to a place of business during ordinary business hours, the revocation was effective when it was received on the telex machine, even if it remained unread
- C entered into contract to charter ship (D)
- contract specified that C had to pay cash monthly
- C had failed to make payments and so D sent notice via telex withdrawing the vessel
- D didn’t read it before making payment
- Court held that the withdrawal was effective -> when Telex message was received, not when it was read
- it was sent during normal office hours -> C’s fault for not paying attention
any communication sent instantaneously is effective when it was available to be read by the other party -> not when it was actually read
Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990]
Bingham LJ tender contracts contractual procedural understanding
- D owned an airport and gave concession to operate leisure flights
- it held a tender, with a deadline at 12pm to submit tenders to letter box -> stated in tender that any tenders that missed the deadline wouldn’t be considered
- C submitted tender at 11am, but box wasn’t emptied on time and D didn’t consider C’s tender
- CoA held that D made an offer of a unilateral contract to consider all timely bids
- an invitation to tender before a deadline can imply a unilateral contract to consider all timely bids
- Court stated that, having looked at the behaviour of the parties, there was clear intention to create a contract -> failure to consider C’s tender made D liable
this is an exception from general rule in Spencer v Harding
Hyde v Wrench [1840]
a counter-offer which terminated the original offer, making it incapable of subsequent acceptance
- D offered to sell C his farm for £1000
- C counter-offered £950 but D refused
- C then offered £1000 but D refused -> C sued for breach
- High Court held that the counter-offer of £950 had killed off the original offer of £1000 -> no contract so no breach
Stevenson, Jacques v McLean [1880]
the court held that S merely made an inquiry, not a counter-offer extinguishing the offer, and so could bind M with his subsequent acceptance
- D offered to sell iron to C, wanted a response by Monday
- C sent telegram with an inquiry
- C then sent telegram accepting D’s offer on Monday
- D hadn’t received C’s acceptance and sold the iron -> C sued for breach
- High Court held that D was liable for breach of contract
- the revocation had not been sent before the acceptance -> unsuccessful revocation
- also, an inquiry on the offer does not equate a counter-offer
Tinn v Hoffman [1873]
simultaneous offers, made in ignorance of each other, would not bind the parties
- D offered to sell C some iron specifying that C should reply by post
- on the same day C sent D a letter to offering to buy the iron on the same terms
- C claimed that his letter was a valid acceptance
- Court held that this was not a valid acceptance -> C cannot accept an offer of which he is not aware
Court noted that even though D specified that the acceptance should be by post, if C had accepted by an equally fast or faster method e.g. telegram or in person, this would also be valid
Shuey v US [1875]
revoking an offer in a newspaper advertisement can be effected by a similar advertisement even if unseen by the original offerees
- Secretary of War issued a proclamation in public newspapers
- President published an order revoking the proclamation
- this revocation applies even if the offerees don’t see the revocation
- a revocation should occur through similar methods to the offer
R v Clarke [1927]
C’s claim for the reward was rejected because he admitted that, when giving the information, he had forgotten about the reward. C did not perform the act to get the reward
- D tried to claim a reward of £1000 for giving information that led to conviction of a murderer
- BUT D gave the information whilst on trial himself, and evidence showed he did it ‘exclusively in order to clear himself’
- High Court held that D couldn’t claim the reward -> it is necessary to act in reliance on an offer in order to accept it -> D hadn’t intended to accept offer of reward -> D had forgotten about it
Australian case
Felthouse v Bindley [1862]
court held against F, the uncle, because his offer to buy the horse could not be accepted by his nephew’s silence
- C offered to buy his nephew’s horse and said that if he didn’t hear any more about him, he’d consider the horse his
- nephew instructed D , horse’s auctioneer to keep horse out of sale as it was reserved for C
- D accidentally sold the horse -> C brought claim against D
- Court held that C’s claim failed -> nephew didn’t communicate his acceptance -> no contract formed -> C had no title to the horse
silence cannot constitute acceptance
