We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLeo Newbrough
Modified about 1 year ago
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Chapter 3 Agreement: Offer and Acceptance
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Introduction Offer and Acceptance and Consideration and No Lack of Intention = Contract (generally) Distinguish Bi-Lateral from Unilateral (will return to latter)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Offers Clark definition Be really sure that something is an “offer” –Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) –Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) –Harvey v Facey (1893)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Offers and Invitations to Treat Rationale for distinction (p.10) –Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim (1966) –Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemist (1953) –Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Exceptions –Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957) –Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd (1893)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Mere Puffs –Carlill –Dimmock v Hallet (1866) –Leonard v PepsiCo (1999) The Need to Communicate an Authorised Offer –Taylor v Laird (1856) –Wilson v Belfast Corporation (1921)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL When an Offer Ends Passage of Time –The Principle Dooley v Egan (1991) Commane v Walsh (1983) –Examples Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) Commane v Walsh
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Revocation –Revoked at any time until acceptance even if promise to keep open Walker v Glass (1979) –Need to Communicate Revocation Dickinson v Dodds (1876) –Dodds offers to sell house to Dickinson; offer open until Friday, 12 June at 9am –On Thursday, Dickinson told by third party that Dodds had sold it to someone else – Dickinson then tried to accept the offer made to him –Dodds rejected –Court of Appeal held that since Dickinson had notice of the sale to the third party, the offer was “incapable of acceptance” –Postal Rule Has No Application – Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) Death –Re Whelan (1897) –Dickinson v Dodds –Earle v Angell (1892) –Re Irvine (1928)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Rejection –Rejection Per Se –Rejection by Counter Offer Hyde v Wrench (1840) Stevenson v McLean (1880) Pars Technology v City Link Transport Holdings (1999)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Acceptance Mirror Image Rule (p.17) Communication of Acceptance –General Rule Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) –Inferred By Conduct Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) –The Postal Rule Adams v Lindsell (1818) Kelly v Cruise Catering (1994) Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974) British and America Telegraph v Colson (1871)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Electronic Communication of Acceptance –Re-state the General Rule –How does it apply to Telex? Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) (acceptance telexed from Amsterdam to London) –What happens if there are problems at the receivers end? –What is the real concept of “receipt”? Entores v Miles Far East Corporation The Brimnes (1975) –Overall evaluation? Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1982)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Relevance of E-Commerce Act, 2000 etc?
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Modes of Acceptance –Waiving the Need For Communication Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) –Can Waive, but Can’t Impose Silence Felthouse v Bindley (1862) –Prescribing Modes of Acceptance Tinn v Hoffman (1873) Staunton v Minister for Health (1986) Yates Builders v JR Pulleyn (1975)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Bi-Lateral and Unilateral Contracts Concepts – p.23 Rule 1: Acceptance is Performance –Billings v Arnotts (1945) –Tansey v College of Occupational Therapists (1995) –Kennedy v London Express Newspapers (1931)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Rule 2: Revocation Cannot Occur Once Performance Begun –Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees (1978) –Errington v Errington (1952) –Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper (1941) Implied Promise or Rule of Law Theory?m
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Offer and Acceptance in Particular Cases Auctions –Harris v Nickerson (1873) –Tully v Irish Land Commission (1961) –Warlow v Harrison (1859)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Tenders Principles clear enough (not in Ireland!) –When one bids in a tender, one is “accepting” the offer held out the person inviting the tender that the tender process takes place in accordance with the express terms it is offer on –McDermott (p20) refers to this as “Contract A / Contract B” theory – Contract B is the contract for, say, the building of the ship. Contract A is the contract which arises governing the process. –In Canada and other jurisdictions it has also been held that implied terms may govern “Contract A”
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Tenders –Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (1986) -“If your offer is highest offer we bind ourselves to accept provided it complies with terms of this telex” -Bid was X or 100K more than any other fixed monetary bid -HL – noted that the telex was offer to accept highest bid made but held that it referred to fixed monetary amounts – it was said that this was an implied term (i.e. that the bids could only be non-referential – this is critical)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Tenders III Howberry Lane v Telecom Eireann (1999) –Very complicated case concerning sale of Cablelink. –Essentially, P wanted to stop 2 nd and 3 rd D’s from selling Cablelink to 1 st D. –Prior to submitting a final bid, Esat entered into an agreement with two other companies, Charter and Vulcan, to form the plaintiff company and it made a bid of £410 million –The third named defendant (NTL) submitted a formula bid that it was willing to pay 15% more than the highest bid. –P gets upset and says 2 nd and 3 rd D’s cannot accept a referential bid (but there was nothing in the contract to say that) –Morris J rejected that he could imply anything into the contract –Also rejected implication of term to deal with “fair dealing” in circumstances where it was alleged that new round of bidding had been opened without reason (i.e. they had opened a new round saying, now formula bids would not be accepted)
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Smart Telecom v RTE (2006) RTE were seeking sponsors for the weather forecast at €1.25m per year for a minimum of two years. Decided to use sealed bids. There were no express provisions saying referential bids were prohibited. Kelly J noted that the point of the sealed bid system was, inter alia, to ensure “fairness and transparency” and to invite each party to “submit its best offer”. Notes that, the terms of the tender anticipated that identical offers may be received and had provisions to deal with such (i.e. which would seem inconsistent with referential bids were acceptable). Interpreting the document as a whole, Kelly J held that referential bids were not part of the presumed intention of the parties and, indeed, noted that this was entirely consistent with the methodology used in Harvela
© GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Judicial Approach to Offer and Acceptance Consider it if you wish Battle of the Forms –Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O-Corp –Chicester Joinery v Mowlam
COMPARATIVE CONTRACT LAW THE LAW OF CONTRACT (CONTINUED) COMPARATIVE LAW LLM KILAW FALL 2013 DR MYRA WILLIAMSON 1.
OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE rules regarding offer 1. An offer may be express or may be implied from the circumstances : An offer may be made in two ways : 1.
Formation of a contract. A contract is an agreement that is enforceable at law.
Contract Law Basics A Practical Approach to Contract Review and Negotiations.
Contracts and Warranties. Why Do I Need To Know This? 1.Because you will sign thousands of contracts in your lifetime. 2.Because you will make offers.
Legal Environment Contract 2 Offers – Part 1. 2 Learning Objectives Quick Review Making a Contract What is an Offer? What is not an Offer? Shopping Online.
SALE OF GOODS – ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Zara Law Offices 111 John Street Suite 510 New York, NY Tel: Fax:
Contracts and Sale of Goods. Contracts - Promise Benefits Society to Enforce Promises Common law v. UCC Contract Law is based on state law Bi-lateral.
Sale Of Goods Act Section 4 – Sale and Agreement to Sale 1.The contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to.
Dolch Words the of and to a in that is was.
1 U.C. Berkeley, Extension Contracts Law Instructor: Tod Zuckerman, Esq.
Freedom of Information Briefing Todays topics..... Introduction Benefits of FOI Countries with FOI Legislation Legislative context The RGU approach.
January 9, 2006BUSINESS LAW (Ms. Hawkins)1 CHAPTER 6: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE Chapter 6 explains how contractual offers are created and ended, and how acceptances.
Specific Performance Prof Cameron Stewart. Definition The remedy of specic performance is the principal means by which contractual obligations are enforced.
Ethics for Alaskas Executive Branch A Self-Guided Training Tool.
SALE OF GOODS Prepared for: LAW 251 Prepared by:.
Copyright 2003 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd. PPTs t/a Fundamentals of Business Law 4e by Barron & Fletcher. Slides prepared by Kay Fanning. Copyright.
©MNoonan2010 Supply of Goods and Services Module 4 Summer
Basics of U.S. Contract Law David J. Mack Dorsey & Whitney LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, New York P: F:
DEALING WITH DISCIPLINARY ISSUES. CONTENTS: 1. Principles of natural justice 2. What comes up for VBOM and Staff 3. What constitutes a disciplinary issue.
DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT. When an agreement, which was binding on the parties to it, ceases to bind them, the contact is said to be discharged. A contract.
Land law - creation and priority of interests Sample question and application of model answer template (University of London international LLB students)
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS A contract creates legal obligations,"Performance of a contract" means the carrying out of these obligations. Each party must.
File Transfer Issues Melanie Hodges Neufeld Jody Martin.
Presented by CA Sandip Chandarana 1. OBJECTIVES Recognition of revenue in the statement of profit and loss account arising in the ordinary course of.
© 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.
Reaching Agreement: The Process of Contract Formation C. LIMITING THE OFFERORS POWER TO REVOKE: THE EFFECT OF PRE-ACCEPTANCE RELIANCE 1.Under the common.
1 W E L C O M E. CICES & PCE–UAE 6 July 2010 – Abu Dhabi Contract Workshop Gary Beamish Eng.C, C.Eng, C.Env, C.WEM, MICE, MCIWEM, MQSI M: E:
Of. and a to the in is you that it at be.
The background of the case It is agreed that Hong Yip is not charging the cost share of the management fee for different owners ( Commercial, Car Park,
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.