Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Contract law, Sufficient Certainty in terms, Intention to create legal…

- - - - Utility
        
        Closer relationships, welfare, wealth
      - Rights
- - - - Inferred?
      - Specific situations
        
        Tenders
        
        Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Company: no referential bid
        
        Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council
        
        Advertisements
        
        Patridge v Crittenden
        
        Advertisements
        
        Unilateral
        
        Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
        
        Bilateral
        
        Auctions
        
        Barry v Davies (auction - sell to highest bid)
      - Mirroring
        
        Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
        
        PSGB v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 (display of goods for sale)
      - Offer vs. invitation to treat
        
        Gibson v Manchester City Council
    - - Communication
        
        Instant communication
        
        One way
        
        Golden Ocean Group v Salgaocar Mining (emails)
        
        Ordinary business hours
        
        Brinkibon (business hours)
        
        Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping Ltd
        
        Entores v Miles Far East Corp (talex, one way instan)
        
        Failure of communication
        
        Two way
        
        Postal rule
        
        Postal Rule Upheld
        
        Adams v Lindsell
        
        Household Fire Insurance v Grant
        
        Qualifications of postal
        
        Holwell Securities v Hughes
        
        Offeree's fault
        
        Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV
        
        only non-instant
        
        NO when expressively excluded
        
        only when reasonable
        
        NO when rly absurd
        
        Consequences
        
        risk delay
        
        no revocation of offer
        
        withdrawal of acceptance
        
        Non-instant
      - Method of acceptance
        
        Silence
        
        NO: Felthouse v Brindley
        
        Through mutual participation
        
        Clarke v Dunraven(the Satanita)
        
        did not fit the traditional O&A framework
        
        Prescribed method of acceptance
        
        offeror must use clear words
      - Counteroffer kills original offer
        
        Hyde v Wrench
        
        mere inquiry does not kill: Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean
      - International entities
        
        Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings
      - Acceptance of unilateral offer
        
        no need communicate
        
        court help prevent revocation?
        
        Yes: Errington v Errington
        
        Yes: Soulsbury v Soulsbury
        
        No: "Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper"
    - - Revoke an offer
        
        1) Revocation by offeror anytime BEFORE acceptance
        
        Before Acceptance: Stephenson v MacLean
        
        Communication of revocation
        
        NO postal rule: Byrne v Van Tienhoven
        
        Revocation brought to offeree's attention
        
        = rule as instant communication of acceptance
        
        who can revoke?
        
        reliable 3rd party: Dickinson v Dodds
        
        business hours: The Brimnes
        
        2) rejection by the offeree
        
        offeree communicates rejection
        
        counteroffer killing original offer
        
        3) Lapse of the offer
        
        stipulated period expired
        
        express/implied condition lapsed
        
        reasonable period passed
        
        4) Death of the offeror/offeree
        
        usually NOT always terminates
        
        yes if has personal consideration
    - - A's term different materially from B's
      - Solutions
        
        Last shot approach
        
        Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corp
        
        majority: "mirror image" rule
        
        affirmed by Tekdata Interconnectors v Amphenol
        
        last shot is default
        
        can displaced if doc/conduct of parties show common intention abt other terms
        
        Lord Denning: two step approach
        
        1: Formation of contract
        
        Content of contract
        
        can add terms via "reasonable implication"
        
        not orthodox
        
        advantages
        
        certainty
        
        Lord Denning's problematic
        
        offends party autonomy via greater court discretion
        
        HL rejected in Gibson v Manchester CC
        
        disadvantages
        
        unjust
        
        encourages non-stop exchange
        
        not reality in commercial
    - - Difficulties of analysis
        
        real life is complex
        
        might be several sensible answers
        
        e.g. bus boarding
      - Worth retaining?
        
        general application
        
        certainty
        
        "working method"
      - Practical application
        
        may involves "forced fitting"
        
        technical doctrine --> practical approach when applying
      - Limits: court didnt go to O&A
        
        e.g. Clarke v Earl of Dunraven
        
        yatcht race, competitors contract w each other
- - - - Exceptions: Blue v Ashley
      - Parties dont want: Baird Textile Holdings v M&S
      - Edwards v Skyways
    - - Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Corp: context & intention