Agreement (Offer and Acceptance) AO3

Offer

Offer is definite and certain - Gibbson V Manchester- was not an offer, but invitation to treat→ must be communicated to offeree, must be open at time of acceptance (not ended by lapse, revocation, rejection)

Invitation to treat V Offer

  • +Display of goods are invitations to treat (not offers) is good because it allows sellers to refuse to supply goods to underage customers

  • + avoids selling goods at wrong price if labelled incorrectly

  • - Could lead to seller to advertise goods in misleading way (Fisher V Bell- flick knife on display, was an invitation to treat, not an offer so it allowed a loophole)

  • - Public is not familiar with invitations to treat, as offer is used often.( unfair on offeror- customer) Should displayed goods be offers as that is what the public sees them as?

Advertisements V Invitations to Treat

  • Carlil V Carbolic smoke ball- Instructions for an advert was performed and then was later seen as a unilateral contract and not an invitation to treat

  • →fair, as judges were influenced by many dubious medicinal products at that time- fair to show that advert as a unilateral offer ( as instructions were followed)

  • + showed disapproval of misleading adverts

  • - distinctions between invite to treat and unilateral offer is confusing for both parties as the law no longer needs this rule as there are alternative ways of doing it now e.g. misrepresentation, however it is still beneficial in "reward" situations

Is the law fair on when an offer comes to an end via revocation?

  • Routledge V Grant, Court allowed offer to be revoked, even before the time set by the offeree (6 weeks in this case, to buy a house)

  • Offer not binding until it is accepted

  • + certainty that it can be revoked anytime before acceptance

  • + doesn’t force offeree into a contract they no longer want (flexibility)

  • - unfairness on offerees, as they may rely on that offer

  • - revocation must be communicated, if revocation is sent but not received in time, dispute may arise whether offer is valid

A 3rd part can revoke an offer, can be communicated by a reliable 3rd party

  • Dickinson V Dodds- house offer would be open until a certain day, reliable 3rd party said house was already sold before deadline

  • + offers flexibility to the offeror

  • - May lead to confusion with the offeree, and they may be concerned whether 3rd party is genuine/reliable

  • - unfair on offeree, if they were promised that offer would be open

Conclusion

→ Link to Question

Acceptance

Introduction

Completes the contract →"unqualified acceptance of all terms" - mirror image of offer

Is Silence not being acceptance fair?
Felthouse V Bindley- auctioning of a horse, "if i hear no more, i consider it mine" - not acceptance
+ it is fair as it can be unclear to the offeror if the offeree accepted, needs a positive response to increase certainty
- goes against freedom of contract, as the court should not impose what is or isn't acceptance. Especially is both parties wanted acceptance to be silence

Is Postal Rule Fair?
Adams V Lindsell- delay in letter meant the offeror thought offeree rejected the offer, but he did not-> rule that postal acceptance occurs when the letter of acceptance is posted ( not recived by offeror)
+ useful protection for offeree at a time where postal services were much less reliable
+ offeree could feel safe if their letter was lost or delayed
- unclear to offeror if offeree accepted as they are unaware
-post is not reasonable method of acceptance nowadays

Are rules fair on modern versions of acceptance?
Brinkibon V Stahag Stahl- acceptance occurs when offeror receives it, case regarding sale of steel internationally
-doesn't account for business hours, especially if an email was sent at night
+Creates a route for instant acceptance, which increases certainty
* Not all offerees are businesses- Thomas V BPE Solicitors rule applies better-> moment of acceptance is when the email is received during business hours, not as soon as it was sent
+ Makes sense as if an acceptance was sent at night to a business, it would be unreasonable to expect an offeror to read it then
- hard to establish when it would have been read, uncertainty as it may be sent incorrectly or sent to spam folder-> sellers can avoid this with careful wording with Article 2 e commerce 2011 reg

Is it clear how unilateral offers are accepted?
Errington V Errington- father tried to revoke an offer after the son started following the conditions (mortgage on a house)
Unilateral offers become irrevocable when it begins
+ certainty-> offeree knows they will not waste resources/ time in vain, more reliable for both parties
+ freedom of contract- offeror's terms are enforced once performance begins
- limits offeror's flexibility, they might want to revoke for valid reasons
- unclear application in modern communication, times of acceptance and offer are blurred

Conclusion

Acceptance is necessary to show the Offeree has accepted the offer

→ Link to Question