-
Introductory concepts
-
Consensus ad idem
- No Consensus ad idem to revoke: Byrn Van Tienhoven
- No consensus ad idem: Raffles v Wichelhaus "peerless"
-
Indicia of aGreement
- Smith v Hughes (oats case)
-
Offer
-
Clear offer?
-
NO
-
Could be a mere Invitation to Treat
- invitation to treat not an offer
- advertising in newspaper:patridge and crittenden
- knife in store window: Fisher v Bell
- products in walk in store: PSGB v Boots
- auction:Payne v Cave
- Statement of Price: Harvey v Facey
- Gibson v Manchester City Council
- cf:Carlil v Carbolic Smoke balls
-
YES
-
ACCEPTANCE?
- YES
- Acceptance
- Must be FINAL and UNQUALIFIED
- Postal rule
- ISSUES
- Communication
- Entores v Miles far East
- Trendex
- Counter Offers
- Hyde v Wrench
- Butler Machine Corp v Excel
- NO
- TERMINATION
- Revocation (by offerer)
- Communication of revocation must precede acceptance by Offeree: Byrn Van Tienhoven
- Communication of Revocation via 3rd Party: Dodd v Dickinson
- An offer to extend the time of the offer can be revoked just like any other aspect of contract: Routledge v Grant
- Unilateral Contracts
- Revocation must precede positive steps by Offeree to fulfill offer: Errington v Errington and Woods
- Offerer Must take steps to revocate the unilateral contract in similar way that he made offer. Shoey v USA
- Rejection (by offeree)
- Counter Offer constitutes a rejection of original offer: Hyde v Wrench
- Time (policy) based
- Ramsgate Hotel
- Financial
-
Aspects of AGreement
-
Intention to Create Legal Relations
-
domestic
- Balfour v Balfour
- Merrit v Merrit
- Jones v Padavotti
- Clarke v Parker
- Simpsons v Pay
-
commercial/business scenarios
- Edwards v Skyways inc
- Esso Petroleum Corp v Commissioner of Customs
-
special circumstances
- HONOUR CLAUSE
Rose and Frank v Crompton bro's
- COMFORT LETTER
Benson v Malaysia Mining Corp
- FORMALITIES
Daulia v Four Millibanks Nominees
- Certainty