Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

offer and acceptance - Coggle Diagram

- - - - offer made to remain open until Monday
        
        Offeree - ‘Please wire whether you would accept 40 for delivery over two months, or if not, longest limit you could give.’ – ignored by the offeror
        
        The offeree accepted unaware items had been sold
        
        Held: a binding contract was created
  - - - F discussed purchase of horse from nephew: price ‘agreed’
        
        Nephew wrote to F saying misunderstanding as to price
        
        F wrote back: “If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse is mine at £30,15s”
        
        Nephew didn’t respond to F but decided to accept offer and told B (auctioneer) not to sell the horse.
        
        B (auctioneer) sold the horse by mistake.
        
        F sued B for ‘conversion’ (misuse of property).
        
        Held: B not liable for conversion because it was not F’s horse
        
        no communication of nephew’s decision to accept
        
        silence by nephew did not constitute acceptance of F’s offer (nor telling auctioneer)
        
        Possible if different circumstances?
  - - - First major way by which contracts could be made at a distance/needed new rule
      - Could simply say contract when postal acceptance is actually received and actually communicated to the offeror
        
        but would slow down commercial trade? promotes certainty?
      - English law developed a special rule very early on – before national postal service
    - - 2 September Defendants sent offer to sell wool by post; required answer ‘in course of post’
        
        5 September offer reached Plaintiffs (letter had been misdirected)
        
        5 September Plaintiffs posted acceptance
        
        8 September Defendants sold wool to X
        
        9 September acceptance reached Defendants
      - Held: contract arose on 5 September when Plaintiffs posted acceptance!
        Extreme examples follow
    - - A posted acceptance is complete on posting
        
        The offeror is bound to a contract without being aware that this has happened
        
        BUT
      - Limitations:
        
        ONLY applies to acceptances; therefore, Offers, Counter-offers, revocation of offers must all be properly communicated
        
        ONLY if postal acceptance is reasonable
        
        ONLY if no contrary intention
        
        With rise in electronic communications has become less important
  - - - technology has devleoped to make this easier
      - Problem if goes unread? Email not opened/goes into spam?
        Again a rule of commercial convenience which this time favours the offeror
    - - So if unread or some sort of malfunction or no ink then risk on offeror and bound
      - Time contract made?
        
        When acceptor could reasonably expect it to have been communicated/read
        
        (eg if sent out of business hours expect read when opens)
      - Applies to new methods of electronic communication such as email
        
        Needs different rule?
      - Sender of Fax get written confirmation that the message has got through
      - Not true of email
      - Some recent first instance cases accept that same rule (but expressly NOT postal rule) applies to email
      - Electronic Communications legislation (following EU law) makes it clear that for contracts made electronically the customer makes offer and the supplier accepts it by acknowledging offer via web page or confirming email
      - Should take effect when supplier can reasonably assume it will have been read.
- - - - Facts:
      - Boots introduced system allowing some medicines to be purchased by self-service
      - No supervision by a pharmacist until the customer went to cashier/at the till.
      - PSGB claimed this was an offence under s 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 which required sale to be under supervision of a pharmacist.
  - - - Facts:
      - Defendant displayed ‘flick-knife’ in the shop window with a price attached.
      - Charged under s 1(1) of Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 with offering for sale offensive weapon
    - - Held:
      - Lord Parker had no doubt as to the contractual position:
      - “…display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract”
      - Sale in shops: the customer makes an offer by giving it to the shop assistant at the till