Mind map
Offer and Acceptance
Map content
Offer and Acceptance
FORMATION OF CONTRACT
- Pre-Contractual phase
- British Steel Case
- Held -- there was no contract, they had failed to agree a price and the issue of liablity. HOWEVER did extra-contractual cause of action restitution
- NB/ Ball contends in LQR 1993 - law should take a more flexible approach however Andrews says this would ruin freedom of contract.
- Held -- there was no contract, they had failed to agree a price and the issue of liablity. HOWEVER did extra-contractual cause of action restitution
- RTS v Muller
- there was a 'subject to contract' bar --> SC held that where the parties completed 3/4 of the tasks they implicitly waived StoC bar.
- Lord Clarke - says StoC is not always conclusive - may find a contract where (i) significant performance (ii) loose ends tied up.
- there was a 'subject to contract' bar --> SC held that where the parties completed 3/4 of the tasks they implicitly waived StoC bar.
- British Steel Case
- Agreements prior to formation of contract NB English law X recognise 'good faith'
- Walford v Miles
- Good faith would be too vague and would require the courts to inquire - drenched in subjectivity.
- Could have a 'lock out' clause if period is fixed.
- Good faith would be too vague and would require the courts to inquire - drenched in subjectivity.
- Walford v Miles
- Main aspects of proposed transaction
- Queensland Electric v Hope Colleries
- 15 yr supply contract - said after 5 years provisions shall continue - tried to argue that this was no more than an agreement to agree - held OBJ.
- Queensland Electric v Hope Colleries
- ANCILLARY AGREEMENTS
- Petromec v Petroelo
- suggests a 'built-on' negotiation clause may be valid.
- Longmore LJ --> says (i) uncertainty (ii) termination (iii) diff to assess loss HOWEVER if this is ancillary certainty is dealt with in main agreement
- suggests a 'built-on' negotiation clause may be valid.
- Petromec v Petroelo
- Pre-Contractual phase
OFFER
- Clear unequivocal willingess to be bound upon the offerees acceptance
- Contrast - INVITATION TO TREAT
- British Pharmaceutical v Boots - held that taking off shelves not acceptance at most it is an offer to the cashier.
- Contrast - INVITATION TO TREAT
- Clear unequivocal willingess to be bound upon the offerees acceptance
ACCEPTANCE
- (i) Awareness of the offer Taylor v Allon - offered temp insurance and didnt know
- (ii) Must not have forgotten about the offer Gibbons v Proctor
- NB/ action does not have to be in response to offer Williams v Carwardine - told them information so wouldn't go to hell on death bed.
- (ii) Must not have forgotten about the offer Gibbons v Proctor
- (i) Awareness of the offer Taylor v Allon - offered temp insurance and didnt know
Sequential analysis Gibson v Manchester CC
PROBLEM OF SILENCE
- Felthouse v Bindley - silence will not suffice, vulnerable and equivocal.
- Rust v Abbey Life - failed to cancel insurance for 7 years - held acceptance
- Nissan v Nissan - Exchanged Faxes , delivering CofA held actions spoke as loud as words
- Rust v Abbey Life - failed to cancel insurance for 7 years - held acceptance
- Felthouse v Bindley - silence will not suffice, vulnerable and equivocal.
Information
- Description
- Contract Mind Map on Offer and Acceptance, created by gabriellafearns on 29/04/2013.
- Created by
- gabriellafearns · Apr 2013
- Updated
- Dec 11, 2016
- Views
- 625
- Tags
- Rating