Offer And Acceptance Further Cases Flashcards
How can R v Clarke be differentiated from Gibbons v Proctor?
In R v Clarke, Clarke had forgotten about the offer at the time he supplied the information while in Gibbons v Proctor, the police officer had knowledge of the offer by the time the information was communicated. There must be knowledge of the offer at the time it is communicated in order to rely on it.
Barry v Davies - Judgment
Auctioneer is obliged to sell to bona fide highest bidder where there is no reserve price. Similar to Warlow v Harrison where owner overbidding bona fide bidder was rejected as a contract had formed between the auctioneer and the bona fide highest bidder in an auction WITHOUT reserve.
Williams v Carwardine - Facts and Issue
Mrs Williams was beaten and bruised by Mr Williams. Fearing for her life, she supplied information that led to his conviction. Me Carwaedine refused to pay. Issue was whether it was necessary that she was induce the reward.
Williams v Carwardine - Judgment
She knew of the offer - she could claim it even if it was not her main motive.
Contrast with R v Clarke where reliance was essential.
What does Daulia v Four Mill Bank Nominees Ltd say about the rule that one cannot revoke a unilateral promise or offer once performance has begun?
There is a logical reason for this - unilateral contracts generally have an implied term that the offeror will nto revoke the offer once the offeree has begun to perform - can claim damages if they do.
Luxor v Cooper brings in an exception to the rule that one cannot revoke a unilateral promise once performance has begun, what is this exception?
Luxor v Cooper said that as in this particular case, commission was only payable on completion of the sale, implied that offeror can revoke at any time before completion.
There may be certain cases, where it may be implied an offeror can revoke once performance has begun.
Warlow v Harrison - Judgment
Unilateral contract - offer that they would sell to bona fide bidder who performs the requested act (making the highest bid).
However, as the hammer had not been struck, there was no acceptance of the bilateral offer and thus contract for sale, and he was only entitled to damages for loss of opportunity to buy the horse.
If a method of acceptance is prescribed but not mandatory, what is necessary to assess?
If to the benefit of offeror - is another method of acceptance less advantageous in terms of receipt of acceptance - if yes, then it is equally as valid (Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General Investments.
If offeree - He can choose to waive this requirement that is in his favour by for example, taking the risk of ordinary post (Yates Building Co. Ltd v Pulleyn and Sons)
How does an offeror revoke a unilateral offer that is made to the whole world, given that it may be difficult to communicate revocation of the offer?
According to Shuey v US, which is persuasive but not binding as it is an American case, you can revoke an offer if you achieve the same ´notoriety´ with your revocation as you gave to the original offer.
