This document summarizes key cases related to offer and acceptance in contract law. It discusses cases that establish that advertisements are invitations to treat rather than offers. It also covers cases around revocation of offers, counteroffers, acceptance through conduct or communication, and reasonable time limits for offers to remain open. The document provides an overview of important legal principles around offer and acceptance from several landmark English contract law cases.
This document summarizes key cases related to offer and acceptance in contract law. It discusses cases that establish that advertisements are invitations to treat rather than offers. It also covers cases around revocation of offers, counteroffers, acceptance through conduct or communication, and reasonable time limits for offers to remain open. The document provides an overview of important legal principles around offer and acceptance from several landmark English contract law cases.
This document summarizes key cases related to offer and acceptance in contract law. It discusses cases that establish that advertisements are invitations to treat rather than offers. It also covers cases around revocation of offers, counteroffers, acceptance through conduct or communication, and reasonable time limits for offers to remain open. The document provides an overview of important legal principles around offer and acceptance from several landmark English contract law cases.
This document summarizes key cases related to offer and acceptance in contract law. It discusses cases that establish that advertisements are invitations to treat rather than offers. It also covers cases around revocation of offers, counteroffers, acceptance through conduct or communication, and reasonable time limits for offers to remain open. The document provides an overview of important legal principles around offer and acceptance from several landmark English contract law cases.
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by hassam bugti (hassambugti26@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|4054255
Contract Law Offer N Acceptance By: Ali Yousaf Gujjar
Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Adverts are an invitation to treat
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd (1893)
Offer in an advert was held to be a unilateral offer to the world at large
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd (1953)
Display of good in a self-service shop is an invitation to treat
Fisher v Bell (1961) Display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat
British Car Auctions v Wright (1972)
Auction booklets constitute an invitation to treat
Sale of Goods Act section 57(2)
Sale at an auction is complete upon the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, or in other customary manner
Harvey v Facey (1893) Mere statements of price are invitations to treat
Bryne v Van Tienhoven [1880]
Revocation must be communicated before acceptance. In postal communication, revocation only valid upon receipt.
Errington v Errington & Woods (1952)
Once performance of a unilateral contract has commenced, revocation cannot take place
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866)
Offers lapse after a 'reasonable time'. Reasonable time depends on the offer and subject matter of the contract.
Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
Revocation can be communicated through a third party, on whom both parties can rely.
Downloaded by hassam bugti (hassambugti26@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|4054255
Taylor v Laird (1856)
No party can be bound by an offer of which they were unaware.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fry (2001)
In unilateral contracts, the offer must have awareness of the offer for it to be valid.
Shuey v United States (1875)
To revoke a unilateral offer, the offeror must take reasonable steps to notify
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Counter-offers kills off old offer; cannot be returned to
Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean (1880)
Requests for information are not counter offers
Felthouse v Brindley (1863)
Silence cannot be acceptance, unless you do something to bind yourself
Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955)
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror; river analogy
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877)
Acceptance can be by conduct, starting to do the contracted work
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983)
no universal rule for acceptance by instantaneous means, must be looked at with reference to party intention, sounds business practice and a judgement of where the risk should lie
Downloaded by hassam bugti (hassambugti26@gmail.com)