offer and acceptance

Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)

Mr Gibson was a council tenant, they wrote to him (council) saying they are prepared to sell his house, so he would make a formal application to buy the house. He did but the council rejected the application.

Held- the letter was not an offer, but invitation to treat, they can chose to reject or accept the offer.

Partridge v Crittenden (1968)

Mr Crittenden advertised for sale some birds and prosecuted for ‘offering to sale’ as it was illegal.

Held- invitation to treat

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)

Company advertised their patented medicine (the smoke ball). It said if a purchaser used it and still got the flu, they would pay them £100.

Held- court awarded her £100. Unilateral offer made by promising to pay money on uncertain conditions.

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots cash chemist (1953)

Items on a self-service shop, were controlled medications, that the pharmacist should offer for sale directly.

Held- items on a self service were only an ‘invitation to treat’ the law had not been broken. By taking the goods, to till were making an offer to buy and pharmacist can accept in accordance of restrictions.

Harvey v Facey (1893)

Harvey wanted to buy Facey’s farm and asked him what the lowest price would be that he would accept. The reply from Facey was ‘the lowest price acceptable was £900’ this was not an offer.

Held- no offer but an enquiry.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

Mr Thornton put money into a ticket machine and was issued with a ticket to park. The machine had made the offer (on behalf of the parking company) and the acceptance was when the money was put into the machine. Thornton had accepted the terms displayed on the machine when he did this act.

Taylor v Laird (1856)

Taylor gave up the captaincy of a ship overseas that he could make his way back to England. Worked as ordinary crew member in order to get home, not payed.

Held- Owner had no knowledge he was working- no contract.

Stevenson v McLean (1880)

Saturday offered to sell iron, open till Monday.

Monday

10am- enquiry for credit terms

13:34- accept offer

13:46- offeror accept iron from third party

Held- defendant failed to communicate

Claimant was valid

Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven (1880)

Defendant company (Cardiff) sent letter 1st October offering sale. Company received letter 11th October, 8th October defendant revoked offer, 20th claimant received their letter but too late.

Held- not enough for offeror to change their mind, they must notify the offeree that the offer is being revoked.

Routledge v Grant (1828)

Grant offered his house for sale, saying that it would be open for six weeks, changed his mind, told Routledge, effective revocation even though it was during the six week period.

Dickinson v Dodds (1876)

Dodds was to sell houses to Dickinson. A reliable third person told Dickinson that Dodds had revoked the offer and this was considered sufficient revocation in law.

Errington v Errington and Woods (1952)

Father purchased for son and daughter in law, if mortgage payments were made then the house would be theirs. Father died, mother inherited, tried to kick out daughter in law but couldn’t as they have a unilateral offer with the father, so they were entitled to the house.

Hyde v Wrench (1840)

Wrench offered to sell his farm for £1,000 to Hyde.

Hyde made counter offer of £950

Hyde then accepted £1,000

Held- counter offer of £950 ended original offer of £1,000

Rejection was communicated no obligation on offeror to maintain £1,000 offer.

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866)

8th June offered to buy shares at Ramsgate, 23rd November Ramsgate accepted, montefiore refused to pay.

Held- time elapsed meant the offer no longer in existence, so he did not have more to pay for the shares.

Felthouse v Bindley (1863)

Discussions over the purchase of a horse ended with a final letter that said ‘if i hear no more, i consider the horse mine’.

Held- silence is insufficient for accepting a contract

Brogden v Metropolitan Rail Co (1877)

Brogden supplier of coal for a number of years, metro- sent draft minor ammendments never communicate acceptance, continue to supply coal.

Held- valid contract, draft amended, acceptance by conduct, prices agreed, paid and delivered, no communication of acceptance.

Yates v Pulleyn (1975)

An option to purchase land, was required to be agreed by notice in writing sent by registered or recorded delivery post. The offeree argued that his letter sent by ordinary post was sufficient for acceptance.

Held- rejected by court, easy for offeree to check certainty of letter arriving, lord denning clear distinction between mandatory and directory instructions.

Neocleous v Rees (2019)

Rees (defendant) claiming benefit of a right of way over land owned by Neocleous. Resolution involved sale of land to Neocleous. Made over email with solicitor.

Held- auto-generated and hand-written signature are the same on emails.

Reveille Independent LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd (2016)

A written offer document required both parties to sign it before it could come into effect. The offeree made some changes.

Held- counter offer had been accepted, by conduct of the parties. The offeree had ‘performed’ as expected so it was through their conduct- intended to be acceptance anyway.

What are the postal rules?

1. The rules apply only if the post is the usual or expected means of communication

2. The letter has to properly addressed and stamped.

3. The offeree has to prove the letter was posted.

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

Lindsell wrote to Adams offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply ‘ in the course of the ordinary post’. The letter was delayed, when Adams received letter, he posted a reply the same day, meanwhile Lindsell assumed he did not want it, so he sold it.

Held- there was a valid contract because acceptance took place as soon as the letter was placed in the post box and there was no communication revoking the offer.

Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983)

Brinkibon based London buying steel sent letter of acceptance by Telex. Stahag Stahl in Austria.

Held- C of A contract formed in Austria, communication of acceptance- telex- Vienna. Postal rules doesn’t apply, instantaneous communication- telex.

Consumer protection distance selling regulations 2000

Online transactions