Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB contract law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Contract Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Offers
What is an offer?
Offer is
Manifestation of offeror’s willingness
to be bound by terms proposed to the offeree
as soon as the offeree accepts
BUT a party can deny the existence of a valid contract by saying offer was invalid because:
1. It was mistakenly made
A party can only escape if the offer, taken from the viewpoint of an objective observer,
was one which is was reasonable to say the offeror meant X and not Y as he actually said.
Q = Objectivity from whose point of view?
Howarth: three points of view
Detached Objectivity
Viewpoint of “fly on the wall”
Separate from either contracting parties
Objections:
Chen Wishart: does not meet the justification for objectivity (e.g. protect promises reasonable expectations)
Spencer: Only acceptable for law to force an agreement on party in rare circumstances
Surely unacceptable to force agreement neither wants on both parties.
“Promisor” objectivity
What a reasonable and honest promisor would perceive.
“Promisee” objectivity
What a reasonable and honest promisee would perceive.
Voster: problem with these classifications is that in bilateral contracts, both parties take on roles on promisor and promisee
Chen-Wishart:
Better idea is “actor objectivity” and “observer objectivity”
And hold that each party’s actions should be understood to the standard of what the reasonable and honest observer would perceive them to be.
Q = What evidence should be taken into account?
Two types can contrasted
Skeleton Objectivity
Limits conduct that counts and prioritises them in strict hierarchy of value
Signed final writing in a contractual document
Unsigned final writing in contractual document
Other writing or speech
Non verbal conduct (nod, wink, contractual performance)
Silence of Omissions
Silence generally not held to be acceptance, even if intended.
Wishart: looks at the conduct itself, not the person conducting it
Examples tend to be specific rules on what conduct are “offers” or “invitations to treat”.
Contextual Objectivity – tends to be the way forward.
Investor Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
Lord Hoffmann:
Takes into account the parties involved and absolutely everything parties could reasonably use that would have affected the way intent was understood.
Assesses the meaning of the person, not just the meaning of the conduct.
Hence is more realistic.
Chen Wishart: drawback is the extent of the evidence, which gives problems if of contradictory meaning.
B did not believe it was acceptance, regardless of the objective intention
Must the offeree hold an actual belief that the offer has been accepted, or if a reasonable person would consider the offer accepted, would this suffice?
If A seems to accept...
And B actually believes there has been accepted
Trietel: then the objective test is satisfied and A will be bound per The Hannah Blumenthal [1983]
Me: This is not correct
The Hannah Blumenthal [1983]: B and A agreed a contract. A failed to take any action for a while, so B applied that the contract had been abandoned.
Lord Brightman:
The test is not wholly objective
To entitle B to rely on abandonment, B must show
That A acted in such a way so as to entitle B to assume that the contract was agreed to be abandoned
And that B did assume that this was so.
The state of mind of B is vital and only evidence showing A’s intentions which comes to the knowledge of B at the time is relevant.
This only suggests that we look at the objective test from the perspective of A
It does not mean that if A actually believes it to be have occurred that the objective test is satisfied
Merely that A also has to actually believe that B had agreed to abandon.
Confirmed by Lord Goff in The Leonidas D that this was the approach to follow.
There is conflict over what should happen if B has no view on whether the agreement was accepted or not
The Golden Bear
Seems to suggest that if objectively it could be thought that there is acceptance,
Then the benefit of the doubt should go to B even if he appeared to have no view at the time
Trietel: This is wrong – as the purpose of the objective test is to protect B from prejudice if he relies on the purported acceptance
And if he has no view or does not actually believe it, then he hasn’t relied on it
Thus he should not be granted protection.
It was not an offer at all
Supply of information
No offer made, even if communicates terms, unless X also communicates commitment to be bound by other’s acceptance of terms.
Gibson v Manchester CC [1979]: Manchester Council began selling off council houses, and responded to G’s enquiry saying a price they might be prepared to sell house. Council asked G to make a formal application which G did. Council in the interim changed political hands and stopped selling of houses.
Lord Diplock:
Council had never made an offer, as explicitly said in their correspondence - only given information in order to start next round of negotiations
Which was G making a formal application (i.e. an offer) to buy
Which they could then consider and accept or reject
Ergo, No acceptance by council, so no contract.
Lord Russell:
Words “may” can’t be construed as an offer
Displays of goods
PSGB v Boots [1953]:
Lord Goddart CJ:
Well-established principle that the mere exposure of goods for sale by a shopkeeper
indicates to the public that there is an invitation to treat but this does not amount to an offer to sell
99 times out of 100 he probably will sell
But he still has the option to say “no”.
Ordinary principles of common sense and commerce must prevail
And holding that self service is an offer to sell is contrary to those principles and would entail serious results.
Chen Wishart: Problems:
Offer could be made by having goods on sale
And Courts could delay acceptance...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB contract law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Contract Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started