Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Certainty, Third Party Rights Offer, ITT & Acceptance

1. Offer or ITT

*
Goods displayed on shelves =ITT (Pharmaceutical Society v Boots)

*
Advertisement in bilateral contract =ITT (Patridge v Crittenden)

*
Advertisement in unilateral contract = offer to whole world(Carlill v Carbolic)

*
Invite to make formal application for housing=ITT (Gibson v Manchester CC)

*
Invitation to submit tenders= offer when addressed to small number of interested parties, if: a) tender procedure's clear, orderly and familiar b) outcome is consistent w/assumption of commercial parties (Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC)

*
Display of goods or advertisement to effect that goods will be sold at particular price =
offer
= ultimately depends on facts!

2. Acceptance

*
Can take any form: a) by conduct (Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway) b) silence won't suffice (Felthouse v Bindley)

*
could argue the rule is flawed in principle & shouldn't apply where offeror is seeking to use it to avoid the contract - shouldn't be able to rely on the rule intended to protect the innocent party c) method can be prescribed/requirement waived altogether, if doesn't adversely affect the offeree (Manchester v Diocesian Council for Education) d) courts can imply the requirement for acceptance to be communicated to him (Carlill v Carbolic)

*
Must be communicated to the offeror (Felthouse v Bindley)
? Instantaneous communication (e.g. telex) a) contract is complete when acceptance is received by offeror b) contract is made at the place where acceptance is received (Entores v Miles?upheld in The Brinkibon? resolve issue by a. ref. to intention of parties b. sound business practice c. possible a judgment where the risks should lie (Thomas v BPE Solicitors)

*
Performance of requested act = not acceptance unless performing party is aware of the offer

*
Postal Rule:acceptance takes place upon posting (Household Fire Insurance v Grant)
= rule can be displaced by clear offeror's stipulation (Holwell Securities v Hughes -shouldn't apply where would lead to manifest inconvenience & absurdity)

*
Must coincide w/ offer, otherwise = counter offer (Hyde v Wrench)

*
Battle forms: parties exchange their own standard terms?is there agreement on material terms (Butler Machines v Ex-Cello Corp BUT o Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd-can't have one universal rule but traditional O&A analysis appliesin most cases? provides degree of certainty desirable to commercial relations. SO take last counter offer as having been accepted. If there's long term conduct b/w parties, may dictate a different approach but court is slow to depart from traditional rules. o GHSP Incorporated v AB Electronic Ltd [2010] - disagreement on whether D's liability was capped ? failure to agree. Evidence of judicial reluctance to conclude no contract had been made when parties have behaved as if there was - judge scrapped both parties' terms & held SGA 1979 implied terms applied.

3. Revocation of Offer

*
Can revoke anytime b/facceptancebutonce accepted can't withdraw

*
Withdrawal must be communicated to the offeree (Byrne v Tienhoven)

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.