OFFER - CONTRACT LAW (CASES)

Contains the cases mentioned in lecture slides and their corresponding slides.

Smith v Hughes (Offer - Intention)

P offered to sell oats to D. On delivery it was discovered that oats were new and thus of no use to D. D refused to pay claiming contract void for mistake. Held - contract valid; the mere fact that D entered into a contract that was not to his advantage did not enable the court to invalidate the contract. D intended to contract even though he did not make it plain to P that he required ‘old’ oats.

Cases for objective test

Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio (The Leonidas), Smith v Hughes

Gibson v Manchester City Council (Offer v ITT - Language Used)

Mr Gibson applied for details of council’s policy of selling council houses. Council wrote it ‘…may be prepared to sell…at a purchase price of…’ and asked Mr Gibson to complete a form which he did and returned it to council. After the election, the new party refused to sell. Held - The phrase ‘may be prepared to sell’ does not constitute an offer.

Storer v Manchester City Council (Offer v ITT - Language Used)

Similar facts to Gibson v Manchester City Council, language used ‘if you will sign the Agreement and return it to me, I will send you the Agreement signed on behalf of the [Council], in exchange’. Held - language indicated council’s intention to be bound and therefore constituted an offer

Grainger and Son v Gough (1896) - ITT - Advertisements, Brochures and Pricelists

A circulation of prices for wine in a catalogue did not constitute an offer, but an invitation to treat

Partridge v Crittenden (1968) - ITT - Advertisements, Brochures and Pricelists

D placed an advert in a magazine indicating that he had some wild birds for sale. It was an offence to offer such birds for sale. Advert did state the price but gave no details about the delivery or quantities available. D was convicted but appealed. His conviction was quashed as court held that the advert did not amount to an offer but merely to invitation to treat.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) - Unilateral Contracts: Advertisements for Reward

D placed an ad in which it promised to pay £100 to any person catching influenza using its smoke ball remedy three times a day for two weeks. Mrs Carlill (P) caught influenza despite using the ball as prescribed, but D denied liability to pay her £100. CA held that ad was a unilateral contract and deposit of £1000 was an indication of willingness to be bound by term of the offer.

Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents (1995) - Unilateral Contracts: Advertisements for Reward

School skiing trip - travel agent ceased trading through insolvency. Held: ABTA notice constituted on offer of ABTA; notice requested the performance of an act as acceptance i.e. booking holiday. Financial protection was a unilateral offer.

Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957) - Unilateral Contracts: Advertisements for Reward

Ad that stated ‘Saturday 9am sharp: 3 brand new fur coats, worth $100. First come first served. $1 each’. held to be an offer, as it requested performance of an act.

Gibbons v Proctor (1891) - Unilateral Contracts (Rewards for Information)

On 29 May, D offered a reward for £25 to the person who gave information leading to the conviction of the perpetrator of a crime to Police Superintendent Penn. Held - P was entitled to the reward - the ad was an offer. Terms of this offer required the information to be given to Penn. The acceptance was the supply of information to Penn and at that time P knew that the reward had been offered.

Fisher v Bell (1961) - ITT - Shop Displays

Display of a flick knife in a window advertising it for sale ‘ejector knife - 4s’ did not constitute an offer, but an ITT (see also: Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots (1952))

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1970) - Vending Machines an Offer

CA Held - the exemption of liability on the ticket was too late because the contract for the use of the car park was concluded when the motorists drove up to the barrier and activated the machine.

Taylor v Laird (1856) - Communication of Offers

A defendant cannot be bound to a contract that they were not aware had been offered to them; D not in position of either accepting or rejecting P’s offer

Tinn v Hoffman (1873)

The promise or offer made on each side in ignorance of the promise or offer made on the other side, neither of them can be construed as an acceptance of the other.

Revocation - Bilateral Contracts

Payne v Cave (1789) - an offer which is not accepted is not binding

Offord v Davis (1862) - offeror is free to withdraw the offer at any time before acceptance

GNR v Witham (1873) - offer cannot be revoked once accepted

Revocation - Promise to Keep Offer Open

Routledge v Grant (1828) - a letter promising to keep an offer open for a specific period did not create a binding obligation; offer could be withdrawn before acceptance

Mountford v Scott (1975) - accepting payment for keeping the offer open changes the circumstances and means that it is binding - D granted C option to buy house open for 6 months in return for payment of £1. D could not revoke the 6 month option

Revocation - Unilateral Contracts

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper (1941) - D asked P to find buyers for cinema; P did and D refused to sell. Held - part performance of the unilateral offer did not prevent the defendant from selling elsewhere.

Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees (1978) Errington v Errington Wood (1952) - part-performance of the obligations of the unilateral offer meant that the offer could not be revoked

Communication of Revocation - Bilateral Contracts

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) - Letter of revocation of offer sent from Cardiff to N.Y. on 8 October. Acceptance of original offer telegraphed on 11 October from N.Y. to Cardiff before letter of revocation arrived. Held - contract in existence on 11 October as revocation ineffective until communicated to offeree

Manner of Communicating Revocation

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) - D offered to sell house to P and to leave offer open for 3 days. No consideration given by P. P decided to accept offer but did not communicate this to D. B (a reliable party) informed P that D agreed to sell house to someone else. P attempted to communicate acceptance to D and claimed there was no effective revocation of offer BEFORE communication of acceptance. Held - revocation effective

Communication of Revocation - Unilateral Contracts

Shuey v United States (1875) - same channels used for making offer should be used for revocation, same level of publicity should be achieved, fact that individual offeree not seen the revocation notice irrelevant

Rejection

Hyde v Wrench (1840) - Day 1 - D offered to sell farm for £1000, Day 2 - C counter offered with £950, Day 3 - C tried to accept the original offer and pay £1000. Held - no contract - offer to buy for £950 = implied rejection

Request for Information = not Rejection

Stevenson v Maclean (1880)

Lapse of Offer

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) and Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1886)

Death of offeree

Reynolds v Atherton (1921) - obiter (offer ceases to be offer, offeree’s representatives cannot accept offer).

When offeree has not received notice of offeror’s death - on acceptance offeror’s estate will be bound by the ensuring contract

Coulthart v Clemenson (1870) and Bradbury v Morgan (1889)