Contract - Agreement: Cases

1. A flick knife displayed in the window of a shop was considered to be an invitation to treat because the shop owner cannot be assumed to be liable to supply every customer in the shop with any product. Displaying products can only entice customers to make an offer to the shopkeeper. Which of the following cases am I referring to?

Grainger v Gough

Harvey v Facey

Fisher v Bell

2. The principle referred to in the last question (displaying in shop windows) was reinforced, however in relation to displaying items on shelves, in which case?

Partridge v Crittenden

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots

Adams v Lindsall

3. But there is an exception to the rule on advertisements for unilateral contracts. In this case the wording of the advertisement was so clear and even provided that in performing the act (HINT: and contracting influenza) you would be rewarded from money deposited with the Alliance Bank.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Entores v Miles Far East

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

4. But how definate can you be? In Grainger v Gough they even provided a price list for their wonderful wines. Is this an offer?

Offer

Invitation to treat

Despite providing a price list, it was held that it could not leave a situation whereby you are contractually liable provide limited stock to a potentially unlimited number of customers.

Explanation

Despite providing a price list, it was held that it could not leave a situation whereby you are contractually liable provide limited stock to a potentially unlimited number of customers.

5. Times have changed - but back in the day, Telex was the equivalent of our fax machine! I know - hard to believe... The point is, it was an instantaneous method of communicating acceptance, thus the offeror needed to be aware of the acceptance. Which case established this principle?

Shuey v United States

Entores v Miles Far East

Partridge v Crittenden

6. One should assume that an advertisement is an invitation to treat. I mean - you couldn't expect the defendant in this case to supply Bramblefinch Hens to the whole world, could you?

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Henthorn v Fraser

Partridge v Crittenden

7. Once offered a price of £1000, if you respond with an offer of £950, this is a counter-offer and the initial offer is invalid. So you can't go back and say, okay £1000 is reasonable I would like to accept that - they may have sold it for £1000 to somebody else! Well, you snooze you lose! In which of the following cases did this happen?

Hyde v Wrench

Henthorn v Fraser

Brinkibon v Stahag

8. Lagged communication includes the postal method. The postal rule applies to those who send an acceptance by post (this differs from revocation). The postal rule ensures that the acceptance as soon as the acceptance is posted and has left the hands of the offeree. This principle was used in a case consisting of the sale of wool. The acceptance was not received until the offerors time limit had lapsed, but it was held that the acceptance was valid because it was sent before the lapse. Which case was this?

Adams v Lindsell

Henthorn v Fraser

Errington v Errington & Woods

9. The postal rule can be avoided, in this case the offeror included the wording "must be notified" which the court held was a sufficient term to stop ensure the acceptance is within the offerors contemplation before the acceptance becomes valid despite the postal method being used.

Adams v Lindsell

Henthorn v Fraser

Holwell Securities v Hughes

10. But how do we revoke a unilateral offer? Communicate the revocation to the whole world? You must revoke a unilateral offer through the same channels which the original offer was made, this is considered to be sufficient action. Which case involved discovering a criminal for a cash reward, which was later revoked?

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Shuey v US

Entores v Miles Far East

11. So we know that if we post an acceptance it is valid from the time we post it, unless it has been avoided of course. But what about revocation? If a revocation has been posted it makes no difference to the normal rules of revocation, it must be communicated and the offeree must be aware of the revocation, until the point at which the revocation is received the offer can still be accepted. Which case covers this principle?

Henthorn v Fraser

Hyde v Wrench

Partridge v Crittenden

12. On the issue of revoking a unilateral offer, what if performance had begun? In this case, the son and daughter-in-law had paid the mortgage instalments of their later deceased father, as he had offered unilaterally that if they did they could keep the house when it was paid for. When the father died, his widowed wife sought possession, but because the performance had begun the offer could not be revoked. Which case?

Stevenson v McLean

Errington v Errington & Woods

Williams v Williams

13. Okay, fair enough - I like the price... I like the product... When can I have it? Requesting further information is not a counter offer, it is not changing any of the terms of the contract, it's just requesting exactly what the contract entails... Who requested delivery details?

Brinkibon v Stahag

Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping

Stevenson v McLean

14. In this case, the revocation was recieved by the offeree before the acceptance was received. The postal method of acceptance must have been within contemplation because of the distance from Liverpool to Birkenhead (19th Century) so the postal rule applied and the acceptance was valid before the revocation. Which case?

Adams v Lindsell

Henthorn v Fraser

Holwell Securities v Hughes

15. In this case, one party requested the lowest sale price for a property, to which the other provided the lowest price of £900. It was held that this is not an offer, it is merely declaring the lowest price they would sell it for - the other party should then offer the £900 which the seller can then accept should they wish to.

Hyde v Wrench

Harvey v Facey

Stevenson v McLean

16. What if I send my acceptance, by fax - telex - answering machine... But outside ordinary office hours? Well, it isn't within the contemplation of the offeror so is not a valid acceptance until such a point that the office is open. In this case the acceptance was sent from London to Vienna, and was recieved within working hours, but if it wasn't read then it isn't in the offerors contemplation, therefore is an invalid acceptance? No, the acceptance is valid as long as it was received by the offeror - it is the offerors responsibility to arrange prompt handling of messages Which case?

Brinkibon v Stahag

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Adams v Lindsell

Contract - Agreement: Cases

2.

What first name or nickname would you like us to use?

2. The principle referred to in the last question (displaying in shop windows) was reinforced, however in relation to displaying items on shelves, in which case?

3. But there is an exception to the rule on advertisements for unilateral contracts. In this case the wording of the advertisement was so clear and even provided that in performing the act (HINT: and contracting influenza) you would be rewarded from money deposited with the Alliance Bank.

4. But how definate can you be? In Grainger v Gough they even provided a price list for their wonderful wines. Is this an offer?

5. Times have changed - but back in the day, Telex was the equivalent of our fax machine! I know - hard to believe... The point is, it was an instantaneous method of communicating acceptance, thus the offeror needed to be aware of the acceptance. Which case established this principle?

6. One should assume that an advertisement is an invitation to treat. I mean - you couldn't expect the defendant in this case to supply Bramblefinch Hens to the whole world, could you?

9. The postal rule can be avoided, in this case the offeror included the wording "must be notified" which the court held was a sufficient term to stop ensure the acceptance is within the offerors contemplation before the acceptance becomes valid despite the postal method being used.

13. Okay, fair enough - I like the price... I like the product... When can I have it? Requesting further information is not a counter offer, it is not changing any of the terms of the contract, it's just requesting exactly what the contract entails... Who requested delivery details?