Uploaded by Maryam Taghavi

MyFirstDocument (1)

advertisement
ST
Objective test/intention irrelevant=
SIMITH V HUGHES
BIL OFFER OR ITT OR UNIL
OFF.
MISTAKES INFERRED FROM
CONDUCT AND CASE
DETAILS/: HARTOG V COLLINS
+ ARGOS WEBSITE : NO
SNAPING AN OFFER
OFFER: C&C+ITCLR & CAPACITY [MCC V
STORER]
COM LAN
MCC V GIBSON
NOT IF
STEP 1: VALID OFFER
NOT IF
BILATERAL CONTR
Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Bl
Council
Note
AGREEMENT: OFFER + ACCEPTANCE
CARLIL V CARBOLIC
SMOKE BALLS
NOT IF
UNIL. OFF/SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
NOT IF
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis S
C
V
A PARTICULAR PERFORMANCE/HIGHEST BID,
ETC. HARVELA V RT
ONLY ANALYZE IF ASKED
ITT
CGR
MANUF
GR
ADS (BIRD): PARTRIDGE V
CRITTENDEN
T IF
TENDERS, SPENCER &
HARDING
CGR
DISPLAY OF GOODS (KNIFE):
FISHER & BELL
SS:CASHIER:PHAR.S V BOOTS
ONTRACT/Blackpool &
Ltd v Blackpool Borough
Council
WEBSITES
FOLLOW STEPS FOR EACH CONTRACT
CAPACITY & LR ONLY IF NECESSARY
BOULTON V
(BOOKS
R V CLARKE (W
AWARE OF THE R
WILLIAMS V CA
(DEATHB
eapolis Surplus Store /FIRST PERSON TO
COME
C. MUST B
COMM
COMMUNICATION MODE
ANUFACTURER' PRICE LIST:
GRAINER V GOUGH
is open to the offeror to
prescribe a mode of
acceptance ?in terms
insisting that only
acceptance in that mode
shall be binding?
If the method was prescribed for the benefit of the offeree, the
offeree can waive a stipulation for his benefit and use an alternative
mode; provided the alternative method chosen does not
disadvantage the offeror----- [Yates Building Co. Ltd v Pulleyn &
Sons (York) Ltd]
A letter is properly posted when it is put into an
P
STEP 2 : ACCEPTANCE
NO IF CO
a. UNQUALIFIED
/MIRROR IMAGE OF
THE OFFER?
OK IF FI
TON V JONES
OOKSHOP)
KE (WAS NOT
THE REWARD)
S V CARWARDINE
EATHBED)
b.FROM THE OFFEREE: Where an
offer is made to a particular person or group of
persons, no valid acceptance may be made by
a person who is not an offeree
OFFEREE'S AWARENESS
OF THE OFFER
INTENTION NOT IMPORTANT
UST BE COMMUNICATD through VALID MODE
COMMUNICATION ACT
IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIED MODE
ACCEPTANCE BY silence does not bound the offeree
CONDUCT:
(FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY): UNCLE
BROGDEN V
& HORSE
METROPOLITAN
can be made by third party only if authorized:
Powell v lee (headteacher) +
UNILATERAL: NO
COMMUNICATION GIBBONS V PROCTOR: Information
reqeust by police. Note: only first
OF AC NEEDED
person for reward (LANCASTER V
BUT
PERFORMANCE
WALSH)
NO COMMUNICATION OF AC DUE TO OFFEROR'S
FAULT: ENTROS V MILES FAR EAST. ALSO
AUTHORITY FOR INST. COM
POSTAL RULE
THE OFFERORE HAD OUSTED POSTAL RULE BY
exercisable by notice in writing
AUCTIO
PAYN
WARLOW
COUNTER OFFER HYDE V WRENC
STEP 3:
IS THE OFFER STILL VALID AT
THE POINT OF ACCEPTANCE, IS
THERE ANY OF THESE CASES?
IF YES, TERMINATION
Note
TIME PASSAGE
DUE TO LACK O
RESPONSE WITH
REASONABLE PERI
TIME:RAMSGATE HO
MONTEFIORE OR LA
RESPONSE WITHIN
PRESCRIBED TIME B
OFFEROR
UCTION
PAYNE V CAVE
WITH RESERVE
ARLOW V HARRIS
ONLY AT THE FALL OF HAMMER, SO
CUSTOMER/OFFEREE MAY RETRACT
ANYTIME BEFORE THAT AND OFFEROR
(AUCTIONER) CAN REJECT
AT THE FALL OF HAMMER
WITHOUT RESERVE
WITHOUT RESERVE, SO UPON
COMPLETION OF ACT /OFFER
BARRY V DAVIS
DAMAGES NOT THE GOODS
EXTINGUISHES THE ORIGINAL OFFER:
REJECTION:
BATTLE OF FORMS
: LAST COUNTER-OFFER BASED ON
ACTED: LA
Butler Machine To
RENCH
SAGE
ACK OF
WITHIN A
PERIOD OF
TE HOTEL V
OR LACK OF
ITHIN THE
IME BY THE
OR
REJECTION
NOT IF
LAPSE OF OFFER:
NON FULFIILMENT OF A CONDITION:
FINANCINGS CO V SIMPSONS
REVOCATION?
A letter is properly posted when it is put into an
official letter box or into the hands of an employee of
the Post Office who is authorised to receive letters.
It is not properly posted by putting it into the hands
of a postman who is only authorised to deliver
letters
but
it was reasonably expected to
use post in this case because
parties were in different cities
even though he had received
the offer in person.
QUENERDUAIN V
COLE, the offerror used
telegram for conter offer
but offeree responded by
post
I
AC SENT DURIN
HOURS BUT N
DUE TO STAF
[THE BRIM
ED ON WHICH THE OTHER PARTY HAS
ED: LAST SHOT
ne Tool Co v Ex-cell-o
T IF
REQUEST FOR FURTHER I NFORM ATI ON
Stevenson, Jacques & Co. v McLean
ABOUT DETAIL OF IRON SALE)
DEATH OF A PARTY :BRADBURY V MORGAN :
IF THE PARTY IS AWARE AND NEITHER
ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVE: DUFF'S
EXECUTOR'S CASE
(QUERY
Revocation of an of
of it reaching
communicated by po
received by the off
By
DID NOT RECEIVE THE AC LETT.)- dissenting
but not approved:Bramwell: unfairness
One Scottish authority seems to support the
proposition that a posted acceptance can be
retracted by a more expeditious communication.
POSTED AC RETRACTED?NO, just as
the posting of the acceptance restricts the offeror's
power to withdraw the offer, so it should restrict the
offeree's power to revoke his acceptance.
HOWEVER
Dunmore v Alexander [CONTESS]-NOT
SUPPORTED BY Thomson v
James
INSTANTANEOUS COMM
DURING OFFICE
BUT NOT SEEN
O STAFF FAULT
BRIMNESS]
THE HIRERES STILL HAD TIME TO MAKE
PAYMENT WHILE THE OTHER PARTY RETRACTED
OUT OF OFFICE HOURS
EMAILS
COMMUNICATION
ALWAYS OUT OF
OFFICE
an offer is effective only upon actual notice
hing the offeree. Where revocation is
by post it takes effect from the moment it is
e offeree and not from the time of posting.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306,
Blair J expressed the view that the postal rule
is inapplicable to email communications,
therefore an acceptance by email is not
effective when sent, but only when received in
the recipient?s inbox. This view is also
supported by the decision of the High Court of
Singapore in Chwee Kin Keong v
Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SLR(R) 594 on
the basis that the receipt rule has greater
global support and because email is a form of
instantaneous communication quite distinct
from the post.
PAYNE V CAVE: OF
WITHREW BEFORE T
OF HAMMER WHICH
POINT OF ACCEP
TRIETLE'S CRITIC
UNCERTAI
E: OFFEREE
ORE THE FALL
WHICH IS THE
CCEPTANCE
CRITICISM ABOUT
ERTAINTY
WHEN
REVOCATION?
PAYNE V CAVE (AT THE FALL
OF HAMMER)
ROUTLEGE V GRANT
MODE: VALID EVEN IF
BRIEFLY MENTION
HEARD TRHOUGH THIRD PARTY:
DICKINSON V DODS
WHEN
WHEN? OPTIONS: ROUTLEDGE V G
WHITHREW WHININ THE AGREED DEA
ACCEPTANCE BEFORE 1)ANY CONSID
AND 2)ACCEPTANCE IS MADE
WHAT IF
unilateral offer?
private parties
TO THE WHOLE WORLD ,
SHUEY V USA
all reasonable steps as
required and whether the
revocation has been given
?the same notoriety?as the
original offer
Before completion of
act:Northern Rail v
witham (£1oo to run)
Once it has s
continues
performed:Er
Errington &
The offerree should not be
stopped from fulfilling the
performance as in Daulia v
Four Mill Nominee (one
express and on implied uni o)
GE V GRANT:
D DEADLINE FOR
ONSIDERATION
MADE
has started and
ntinues to be
med:Errington v
gton & Woods
e
v
o)