10421133
Description
Flashcards by Samuel Brown, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Samuel Brown
over 6 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Taylor v Laird (1856) | Offer must be communicated |
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd (1893) | An advert can be an offer (but not a contract) if the advert makes a unilateral offer (i.e. if you do this, then I will do this in return) |
| Hyde v Wrench (1840) | A counter-offer destroys the original offer |
| Stevenson, Jacques Co v McLean (1880) | Request for information are not counter-offers. |
| Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) | If no expiration is set for an offer, the court decides what is reasonable based on all the facts of the case |
| Errington v Errington & Wood (1952) | A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once the offeree has begun performing |
| Payne v Cave (1789) | Revocation of offer can occur anytime before acceptance (in this case, Cave made an offer to buy at auction but withdrew it before final gavel (acceptance) |
| Byrne v van Tienhoven (1880) | Revocation must be successfully communicated to the offeree before acceptance to be a valid revocation. Revocation sent but not received before acceptance is not valid. |
| Dickinson v Dodds (1876) | Revocation can be relayed by a reliable third party. |
| Felthouse v Bindley (1862) | Acceptance must be communicated and neither party can stipulate that the others silence equals acceptance |
| Entorres v Miles Far East (1955) | Acceptance must be fully communicated to be valid. |
| Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft (1983) | Apply sound business practice to determine when acceptance was communicated. Generally, if sent during office hours, it is considered received even if unread. If sent outside normal office hours, considered communicated at next reasonable time (i.e. when office is next open). |
| Adams v Lindsell (1818) | Postal rule - acceptance is valid once it is posted, even if it never arrives to offeror. |
| Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979) | In a battle of forms, the final shot wins assuming no objection is raised and the contract commences. |
| Hillas Ltd. v Acros Ltd (1932) | Vagueness doesn't mean no agreement exists, especially if the parties have an existing relationship; courts can look at intent as well as letter of contracts |
| Nicolene v Simmonds (1953) | An uncertain/meaningless term in a contract can be ignored is contract still makes sense while the rest of the contract is valid and enforceable (e.g. "the usual conditions of acceptance apply" was meaningless so ignored by the court) |
| Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston (1941) | A vague term, central to the contract can void the whole thing (e.g. the car is sold on "hire purchase terms") was too vague but contract made no sense without it, so contract void. |
| Baird Textile Holding Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (2001) | An express contract cannot be implied if there is no objective criteria on which to assess what might be reasonable. (?) |
| Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) | Saying you may sell something at a given price is not firm enough to constitute offer to sell. It's an invitation to treat. |
| Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953) | Displaying something for sale is not an offer to sell, but an invitation to treat. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.