Term
| What role does the offeror play in creating the contract? |
|
Definition
| The offeror makes the offer |
|
|
Term
| What role does the offeree make in creating the contract? |
|
Definition
| The offeree accepts the offer (or rejects it) |
|
|
Term
| What is a bilateral contract? |
|
Definition
Where both parties assume an obligation to each other by making each other a promise to do something
e.g. I give you cheese, you give me money |
|
|
Term
| What is a unilateral contract? |
|
Definition
One party makes an offer/proposal in terms which call for an act to be performed by one or more other patries... the offer is accepted when the requested act is performed.
e.g. If you give me money, I will give you cheese |
|
|
Term
| In a unilateral contract, can the offer be accepted by a promise to perform the act? |
|
Definition
| NO - the offer is ONLY accepted upon performance of the act |
|
|
Term
| Why must an offer be certain? |
|
Definition
An offer is a promise by the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of an unconditional acceptance being made.
Once the offer is accepted, the terms of the offer become the terms of the contract |
|
|
Term
| Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] |
|
Definition
AN OFFER MUST BE CLEAR AND CERTAIN
Council wrote to tenant saying they MAY be prepared to sell the tenant his house - HELD = lacked the required clarity & certainty to be an offer, instead = first step in negotiations. |
|
|
Term
| Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] |
|
Definition
| ONCE THE OFFER IS ACCEPTED BY THE OFFEREE, THE OFFEROR IS BOUND |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that 'an offer must be clear and certain'? |
|
Definition
| Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] |
|
|
Term
| What is an 'invitation to treat'? |
|
Definition
| An invitation to make an offer |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
What is the general rule w.r.t price-marked goods displayed in a shop? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| If a shop expressly designates that price-marked goods in a shop are an 'offer', are they to be treated as an offer? |
|
Definition
| General rule = NO, they are to be treated as an invitation to treat. |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms the general rule w.r.t price-marked goods displayed in a shop? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms the general rule w.r.t price-marked goods displayed in a SELF-SERVICE shop? |
|
Definition
| Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A PRICE-MARKED ITEM ON DISPLAY IN A SHOP IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT NOT AN OFFER
Flick knife case |
|
|
Term
| Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] |
|
Definition
| A PRICE-MARKED ITEM ON DISPLAY IN A SELF-SERVICE SHOP IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT NOT AN OFFER |
|
|
Term
| Why are price-marked goods displayed in a shop generally taken to be an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
a) Enables shop-keeper to exercise the right to refuse to
b) When the customer places the item in the basket, this would otherwise amount to acceptance of the offer, which in turn would legally bind them. |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
What is the general rule regarding advertisments (bilateral)? |
|
Definition
| General rule = Invitation to treat |
|
|
Term
| Which three cases can be used to show the general rule that advertisments (bilateral) are 'invitations to treat'? |
|
Definition
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] (Birds)
Harris v Nickerson [1873] (Auction)
Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] (Wine list + Obiter) |
|
|
Term
| Partridge v Crittenden [1968] |
|
Definition
AN ADVERTISMENT (bilateral) IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT
Advert advertising sale of wild birds - advertisee could not be convicted for selling wild birds because advert = Invitation to treat |
|
|
Term
| Harris v Nickerson [1873] |
|
Definition
AN ADVERTISMENT (bilateral) IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT
Auctioneer advertised that he would sell certain items in an auction. C went to auction to purchase specific items. Auctioneer withdrew the items.
HELD - Advert = Invitation to treat, NOT offer. |
|
|
Term
| Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] (general rule confirmed, ignoring obiter) |
|
Definition
AN ADVERTISMENT (price list) (bilateral) IS NOT AN OFFER
Wine seller produced price list -
HELD = invitation to treat, as inevitable, the stocks of wine of any particular description would be limited. |
|
|
Term
| Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] (OBITER) |
|
Definition
POSSIBILITY THAT IF THE SELLER IS ALSO THE MANUFACTURER,ADVERTISMENT/DISPLAY OF GOODS MAY BE AN OFFER
ON THE BASIS THAT THE MANUFACTURER IS NOT LIMITED IN SUPPLY |
|
|
Term
| Which case presents a possible exemption to the general rule that 'advertisments' (bilateral) are 'invitations to treat' |
|
Definition
| Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] - OBITER REMARKS - If the seller is also the manufacturer supplies are possibly unlimited, therefore possible inference that advertisment = offer |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
What is the general rule concerning advetisments (Unilateral)? |
|
Definition
| General rule = (Unilateral) Offer |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirm the rule that advertisments (unilateral) = Offer |
|
Definition
| Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] |
|
|
Term
| Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] |
|
Definition
IF AN ADVERTISMENT IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONSTRUED AS A UNILATERAL OFFER, AND THERE IS SUFFICIDENTLY CLEAR ICLR, THE ADVERTISMENT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFER
Smokeball case - ICLR inferred from defendents claiming to have deposited £1000 in the bank. |
|
|
Term
| John D.R. Leonard v Pepsico Inc. [AMERICAN] |
|
Definition
IF THERE IS NO SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR ICLR IN A UNILATERAL ADVERTISMENT = NOT AN OFFER
Aeroplane & Pepsi token case. |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
What is the general rule concerning invitations to tender (where a party invites other party/ies to submit quotes) |
|
Definition
| General rule = Invitation to treat (an invitation to interested parties to make offers to be considered) |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms the general rule that an invitation to tender is an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the exceptions to the general rule that an invitation to tender is an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
a)Where it appears that the requestor intended to make an offer... e.g. an undertaking to sell to the highest bidder
b)An invitation to tender may be construed as an offer to CONSIDER all appropriately submitted tenders |
|
|
Term
| Spencer v Harding [1870] (ignoring obiter) |
|
Definition
AN INVITATION TO TENDER IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT
REQUESTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE MOST PROFITABLE TENDER (unless they undertake to do so) |
|
|
Term
| Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] |
|
Definition
AN INVITATION TO TENDER MAY BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFER TO CONSIDER ALL APPROPRIATELY SUBMITTED TENDERS
Where...
a) the tenders are solicited from a KNOWN group of specified parties
b) there is an absolute deadline for submission
c) absolute and non-negotiable conditions for tender submission has been laid down |
|
|
Term
| Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co. of Canada Ltd [1985] |
|
Definition
WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUESTOR INTENDED/BOUND HIMSELF TO MAKE AN OFFER, AN INVITATION TO TENDER = OFFER
Requestor had made a commitment to sell to the highest bidder. Court held = offer.
(Confirms Spencer v Harding Obiter) |
|
|
Term
| Spencer v Harding [1870] (OBITER) |
|
Definition
Where it appears the the requestor intends to make an offer, the general rule thatr an invitation to tender is an invitation to treat is displaced.
e.g. commitment to sell to the highest bidder. |
|
|
Term
| What are the three requirements laid down in Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990]... for when an invitation to tender entails an offer to consider all tenders? |
|
Definition
a) the tenders are solicited from a KNOWN group of specified parties
b) there is an absolute deadline for submission
c) absolute and non-negotiable conditions for tender submission has been laid down |
|
|
Term
| The Public Sector Contracts Regulations 2006 & The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006... limit what?? |
|
Definition
| The freedom of public sector bodies in deciding which tender to accept. |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
What is the general rule concerning an auctioneer's request for bids? |
|
Definition
General rule = invitation to treat
(therefore, bidder makes an offer, and auctioneer accepts the offer on the fall of the hammer) |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms the general rule that an auctioneer's request for bids is an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
AN AUCTIONEER'S REQUEST FOR BIDS IS AN INVITATION TO TREAT
AN OFFER CAN BE REVOKED UP TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS ACCEPTED
C made the highest bid, but withdrew it before the fall of the hammer.
HELD - C's bid was an offer, and could be revoked before acceptance |
|
|
Term
| Which part of which statute confirms that an auctioneer's request for bids is an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
| s57 Sale of Goods Act 1979 - 'A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer' |
|
|
Term
| In an exam, how would you go about asserting that an auctioneer's request for bids is an invitation to treat? |
|
Definition
First, cite s57 Sale of Goods Act
Second, cite Payne v Cave [1789] |
|
|
Term
| What does s57 Sale of Goods Act 1979 state? |
|
Definition
| A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer' |
|
|
Term
| In an auction which is advertised as being 'without reserve', how is the general rule about 'invitation to treat' affected? |
|
Definition
It is assumed that in such a case, two contracts are formed...
1) The auctioneer forms a unilateral contract to sell to the highest bidder
2) A bilateral contract is formed with the usual 'auction' rules... request for offers = invitation to treat. Therefore, higest bidder = offeror
Therefore, the highest bidder may sue the auctioneer for breach of contract, but the highest bidder is not entitled to the goods, since this is dictated by the bilateral contract. |
|
|
Term
| The 'confusing' double contract structure of 'auctions without reserve' was introduced in OBITER in which case? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which case confirmed the Warlow OBITER concerning 'two contracts on items without reserve' |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Confirms that in an auction 'with no reserve', two contracts exist (Unilateral & Bilateral) |
|
|
Term
Offer / Invitation to treat...
Discuss w.r.t websites |
|
Definition
1)General rule suggests that website items = invitation to treat
2) Regulation 12 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 MAY imply that website = invitation to treat
3) However, from the wording of the directive, this is unclear
4) Therefore = NO LAW
5) Where a website represents information to the customer (after the customer has submitted all their details etc...) and asks customer to confirm the order, this MAY be construed as rendering the website as the offeror and the customer as the offeree / acceptee |
|
|
Term
Pricing mistakes on websites...
Discuss... |
|
Definition
Two categories:
a) Where the customer tires to purchase, but the website discovers the mistake and does not confirm the purchase
b) Where the website has confirmed the purchase |
|
|
Term
| Pricing mistakes on websites. Situation (a), where the website has not confirmed the purchase |
|
Definition
| Assuming website = invitation to treat... Therefore, customer = offeror, and the website has not accepted the offer, therefore = NO CONTRACT |
|
|
Term
Pricing mistakes on websites.
Situation (b), where the website has confirmed / accepted the purchase |
|
Definition
Technically = offer & acceptance, therefore = contract.
HOWEVER:
a) Case law = no binding contract where there is a mistake which the buyer knew/ought reasonably have been aware of (Hartog v Colin Shields [1939])
b) SINGAPORE - Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004] - suspicious pricing which customer knew of/ought reasonably to have known of = no binding contract |
|
|
Term
| Can an automated receipt of purchase = acceptance? |
|
Definition
| NO - Regulation 11 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 |
|
|
Term
| Regulation 11 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 |
|
Definition
| An automated receipt of purchase CANNOT = acceptance |
|
|
Term
| What are the different ways in which an offer may be communicated? |
|
Definition
| Many ways... orally, written, implied from conduct, partly expressed and partly implied. |
|
|
Term
| What are the different ways in which an offer may be communicated? |
|
Definition
| Many ways... orally, written, implied from conducts, partly expressed and partly implied. |
|
|
Term
| What are the different ways in which an offer may be communicated? |
|
Definition
| Many ways... orally, written, implied from conducts, partly expressed and partly implied. |
|
|
Term
| At what point does an offer become a valid offer? |
|
Definition
| Once it is communicated to the offeree |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
AN OFFER IS ONLY VALID UPON COMMUNICATION TO THE OFFEREE
C = ship captain who resigned mid-voyage
C then decided to work to bring the ship home
Upon arrival, he sought his wages for helping to bring the ship home
Cour HELD = no offer because it was not communicated to offeree, therefore no acceptance, and no contract |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that an offer can be made generally to the whole world? |
|
Definition
| Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] |
|
|
Term
| What are the three ways in which an offer may be terminated? |
|
Definition
1) Rejection
2) Revocation
3) Lapse |
|
|
Term
| At what point does a rejection of an offer take place? |
|
Definition
| Once it has been communicated to the offeror - as up until that point, the offeror will still believe that they are bound by the offer |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The offeree (person who receives the offer) rejects the offer. |
|
|
Term
| Does the postal rule apply to the rejection of offers? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What happens if the offeree makes a counter offer? |
|
Definition
| The original offer is deemed to have been rejected. The original offeree is now the offeror, and the original offeror becomes the offeree |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that a counter offer = a rejection? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A COUNTER OFFER EQUALS A REJECTION OF THE ORIGINAL OFFER
D made an offer
C made a counter offer
D rejected the counter offer
C tried to accept D's original offer
HELD - C had rejected the original offer (& thus terminated it), by making a counter offer |
|
|
Term
| In a situation where counter-offers are made back and forth between buyer and seller, when the contract is finally concluded, upon whose terms is the contract made? |
|
Definition
| On the terms of whomever was the final offeror. |
|
|
Term
| Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cell-o Corporation [1979] |
|
Definition
| WHERE COUNTER OFFERS ARE MADE BACK AND FORTH, THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WILL BE THE TERMS OF WHOMEVER IS THE FINAL OFFEROR |
|
|
Term
| If, upon receiving an offer, the offeree makes a request for further information, what happens to the original offer? |
|
Definition
| Nothing, the original offer remains |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that a 'request for information' does not = rejection / alter the original offer? |
|
Definition
| Stevenson, Jacques & Co. V McLean [1880] |
|
|
Term
| Stevenson, Jacques & Co, v McLean [1880] |
|
Definition
A REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION DOES NOT = REJECTION / ALTER THE ORIGINAL OFFER
D offered to sell C some Iron
C replied asking if D would be willing to accept payment by installments
Hearing no response, the C sent D a telegram accepting the offer
D then informed C that he had sold the items to someone else
D argued that C had terminated the offer
HELD - request for information does not terminate the offer |
|
|
Term
| Up to which point may the offeror revoke his offer? |
|
Definition
| Up to the point where the offeree accepts it |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that an offer can be revoked up to the point where it is accepted? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Routeledge v Grant [1828] |
|
Definition
| WHERE AN OFFEROR STIPULATES THAT AN OFFER WILL STAY OPEN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, PROVIDED THAT THE OFFEREE GIVES NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE OFFER TO BE KEPT OPEN, THE OFFEROR MAY WITHDRAW THE OFFER AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE PERIOD` |
|
|
Term
| If an offeror agrees to keep an offer open for a certain period of time, can the offeror then revoke the offer within that period? |
|
Definition
| YES - provided that the offeree has given no consideration for the offer to remain open |
|
|
Term
| Which cases confirm that an offeror can revoke an offer even if they have agreed to keep it open for a specified period of time (provided that the offeree has given no consideration for the offer to remain open) |
|
Definition
Routledge v Grant [1828]
Dickinson v Dodds [1876] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) WHERE AN OFFEROR STIPULATES THAT AN OFFER WILL STAY OPEN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, PROVIDED THAT THE OFFEREE GIVES NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE OFFER TO BE KEPT OPEN, THE OFFEROR MAY WITHDRAW THE OFFER AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE PERIOD
2) REVOCATION OF AN OFFER CAN BE COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFEREE VIA A THIRD PARTY |
|
|
Term
| At what point does revocation of an offer by the offeror become effective? |
|
Definition
| At the point at which notice of the revocation reaches the offeree |
|
|
Term
| Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] |
|
Definition
REVOCATION OF AN OFFER IS EFFECTIVE UPON THE OFFEREE RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION
D posted a revocation of the offer he had made to C
Before C received the recovation, he posted his acceptance of the offer
HELD - the revocation was ineffective |
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that revocation of an offer is effective upon the offeree receiving notice of the revocation? |
|
Definition
| Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] |
|
|
Term
| Can revocation of an offer be communicated to the offeree by a third party? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| How can someone accept a unilateral offer? |
|
Definition
| By complete performance of the act(s) required |
|
|
Term
| What is the general/basic rule on the point up to which a unilateral offer can be revoked? |
|
Definition
| Up to the point where the offeree has completed performance of the required act(s) |
|
|
Term
| Which cases esposes the general rule that a unilateral offer may be revoked up to the point where the offeree has completed the required act(s) |
|
Definition
Great Northern Railway Company v Witham [1873] (obiter)
Petterson v Pattberg [1928] |
|
|
Term
| Great Northern Railway Company v Witham [1873] |
|
Definition
OBITER - A UNILATERAL OFFER MAY BE REVOKED UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE OFFEREE HAS COMPLETED PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT(S)
'If I offer you £100 if you will walk to York, I could revoke my offer at any time before you reach York' |
|
|
Term
| Is there an obligation for an offeree who embarks upon performance of a unilateral offer to inform the offeror of their intention to perform the act? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Where a unilateral offer has been made, how can the offeror revoke it? |
|
Definition
| There is no English authority on this point, however, proposition that the offeror must take reasonable steps to bring the revocation to the attention of all those who may have been aware of the offer - + backed up by American authority - Suey v United States [1875] |
|
|
Term
| Shuey v United States [1875] - AMERICAN |
|
Definition
| WHERE AN OFFEROR WISHES TO REVOKE A UNILATERAL OFFER, THE OFFEROR MUST TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO BRING THE REVOCATION TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL THOSE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE OFFER |
|
|
Term
| Key issues which determine the revocation of a unilateral offer... |
|
Definition
1) Notoriety of the offer vs notoriety of the revocation
2) whether there had been any part performance of the offer
3) Offeree should reasonably be aware that the offer may be revoked in the same manner in which it was made (e.g. an offer made in the Metro may be revoked in the Metro) |
|
|
Term
| Where a unilateral offer has been made, how can the offeror revoke it? |
|
Definition
| There is no English authority on this point, however, proposition that the offeror must take reasonable steps to bring the revocation to the attention of all those who may have been aware of the offer - + backed up by American authority - Suey v United States [1875] |
|
|
Term
| Shuey v United States [1875] - AMERICAN |
|
Definition
| WHERE AN OFFEROR WISHES TO REVOKE A UNILATERAL OFFER, THE OFFEROR MUST TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO BRING THE REVOCATION TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL THOSE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE OFFER |
|
|
Term
| Key issues which determine the revocation of a unilateral offer... |
|
Definition
1) Notoriety of the offer vs notoriety of the revocation
2) whether there had been any part performance of the offer
3) Offeree should reasonably be aware that the offer may be revoked in the same manner in which it was made (e.g. an offer made in the Metro may be revoked in the Metro) |
|
|
Term
| What are the three ways in which an offer can lapse? |
|
Definition
1) By passage of time
2) By the death of one of the parties
3) by the non-fulfillment of a condition precedent |
|
|
Term
| Under what circumstances can an offer lapse? |
|
Definition
a) Where acceptance is not made within the period prescribed by the offeror
b) Where acceptance is not made within a reasonable time (depends on circumstances of the case)
c) death of one of the parties
d) non-fulfillment of a condition precedent |
|
|
Term
| Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v Montefiore [1866] |
|
Definition
| OFFER MAY LAPSE WHERE ACCEPTANCE IS NOT MADE WITHIN WHAT IS DEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE PERIOD |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IF THE OFFEREE IS UNAWARE THAT THE OFFEROR HAS DIED, THE OFFER WILL PROBABLY NOT LAPSE... AND WILL THEREFORE STILL STAND |
|
|
Term
| Duff's Executors' Case [1886] |
|
Definition
| IF THE OFFEREE DIES, THE OFFER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE DEATH BY THE OFFEREE'S REPRESENTATIVES |
|
|
Term
| Kennedy v Thomassen [1929] |
|
Definition
WHERE THE OFFEREE'S REPRESENTATIVES ARE UNAWARE THAT THE OFFEREE HAS DIED, THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT AN OFFER ON BEHALF OF THE OFFEREE
The deceased's Solicitors were unaware that the deceased had died, and accepted an offer on behalf of the deceased
HELD - acceptance was ineffective on the basis that the solicitor's authority was terminated by the death of their client. |
|
|
Term
| Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] |
|
Definition
WHERE THE OFFER IS SUBJECT TO AN IMPLIED/EXPLICIT CONDITION, THE OFFEREE'S FAILURE TO MEET THAT CONDITION WILL RESULT IN A LAPSE OF THE OFFER
C offered to take a car under a hire purchase agreement with a finance company
Before the finance company agreed to acced the offer the car was stolen and damaged
HELD - the agreement was subject to an implied term that the car remained in the same condition up to the time of the acceptance of the offer |
|
|
Term
| Petterson v Pattberg [1928] |
|
Definition
| A UNILATERAL OFFER MAY BE REVOKED UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE OFFEREE COMPLETES PERFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED ACT |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem with the rule that a unilateral offer may be revoked up to the point where the offeree has completed performance of the requested act? |
|
Definition
| The offeree may have gone to expense in trying to complete the act. E.g. I will pay you £100 to walk to York... offeree may be 3/4 of the way through the journey when the offer is revoked = unfair on the offeree |
|
|
Term
| It has long been recognised that application of the rule, that a unilateral offer can be revoked at any point up until complete performance, can cause injustice an hardship. However, why is the rule still there then? |
|
Definition
| attempts to overcome the rule have run in to conceptual difficulties. It is generally accepted that it would be desirable for the power to revoke to be lost once the offeror has notice that an offeree has unequivocally embarked upon performance. However, conceptually difficulties prevent this |
|
|
Term
| Which cases can be used as examples of the courts finding ways of overcoming the rule that a unilateral offer can be revoked at any point up until complete performance of the requested act? |
|
Definition
Errington v Errington 1952
Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007]
Dualia v Four Mill Bank Nominees Ltd [1978] (obiter) |
|
|
Term
| Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] |
|
Definition
HELD - ONCE OFFEREE HAS BEGUN PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT, OFFEROR CANNOT REVOKE - HOWEVER, CA OFFERED NO CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS DECISION
Wife promised £100,000 on the death of an ex-husband in exchange for her refraining from enforcing a county court order in her favour
CA considered thart once she acted on this promise (by not suing to enforce) the promise could no longer be revoked.
However, if the wide had chosen to sue for the judgement, then she clearly would not have accepted the offer and could not claim the £100,000 |
|
|
Term
| How would one go about discussing whether a unilateral offer can be revoked after the offeree has commenced performance of the act (but not completed it)? |
|
Definition
1) General rule
2) However = hardship
3) Dualia [1978]
4) Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007]
4) Errington v Errington [1952] (promissery estoppel)
5) However, it still = inconclusive |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem w.r.t Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] w.r.t whether a unilateral contract can be revoked after part-performance? |
|
Definition
| CA found that after wife had part performed, the unilateral offer could not be withdrawn. HOWEVER, it offered no conceptual explanation for this decision, therefore, it isn't really that useful. |
|
|
Term
| What is the 'genius' conclusion on the issue of whether a unilateral offer can be revoked after part performance by the offeree? |
|
Definition
| None of the above explanations is entirely satisfactory. However, despite this, it seems fairly safe to predict that the courts will continue to find offers of unilateral contracts to be irrevocable after performance has begun (cited directly from text book). |
|
|
Term
| Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] |
|
Definition
PE = POSSIBLE WAY IN WHICH A UNILATERAL OFFER CANNOT BE REVOKED AFTER OFFEROR IS AWARE THAT OFFEREE HAS BEGUN PERFORMANCE (DENNIGN DOESN'T EXPLICITLY REFER TO PE, BUT HIS ANALYSIS HEAVILY SUGGESTS IT)
D's father told D and his wife (C) that if they (C&D) paid off mortgage on a house, they (C&D) could live in the house & have the house once it was all paid off
C & D began paying off mortgage
D's father died
D divorced C
Morthgage was not fully paid off yet
D wanted C to surrender the house & move out
HELD - the C (&D) had acted in reliance on the promise (PE) - f they hadn't acted on it, the C could be forced to evict. However, as they had, the C could not be evicted. The D's father would not have been able to revoke the promise once the C&D had entered in to part-performance of it. |
|
|
Term
| Upon which principle does Errington v Errington & Woods [1952] rely? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the difficulties with relying on promissery estoppel w.r.t preventing the revocation of a unilateral offer after performance has begun? |
|
Definition
1) No pre-existing legal relationship between the parties
2) Shield not a sword - the doctrine cannot currently be used to found a cause of action
IN ERRINGTON, A PRE-EXISTING LEGAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED, AND AS ERRINGTON HAD SPENT MONEY ON THE LAND, PE WAS ARGUABLY USED AS A SHIELD, TO DEFEND HER EXPENDITURE. |
|
|
Term
| How can the doctrine of promissery estoppel be used to prevent the revocation of a unilateral offer once the offeror is aware that the offeree has commenced performance? |
|
Definition
1) Easy to find an implied representation by the offeror that the offer will be held open long enough for performance to be completed
2) Easy to find reliance by the other party on that representation |
|
|
