Acceptance
This Contract Law lecture looks at the legal theories of acceptance. This Contract Law lecture dives thoroughly into an acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer. Not all transactions lend themselves to an easy analysis in terms of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’. Yet the court will always examine the communication between the parties to discover whether, at any one time, one party may be deemed to have assented to all the terms, express and implied, of a firm offer by the other party. An assent which is qualified in any way does not take effect as an acceptance.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you will know:
the constituents of a valid acceptance;
the rules in relation to communication of acceptance;
the exceptions to the general rule that acceptance must be communicated;
how to apply the rules relating to offer and acceptance to problem situations.
Cases
Silence is not acceptance
Felthouse v Bindley (1863) 142 ER 1037, Exch Ch
Specific method of acceptance
Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271, Exch.Ch.
Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial General Investments [1969] 3 All ER 1593
Acceptance can be by conduct
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 666
The Battle of the Forms
Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex Cell O Corporation ltd [1979] WLR 401
The Postal Rule
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 ExD 216
Communication of Acceptance
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
When is acceptance communicated?
Entores v Miles Far East Company [1955] 2 QB 327
Revocation of offer
Routledge v Grant (1828) 130 ER 920, Best CJ
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5CPD 344
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2ChD 463
The Brimnes [1975] QB 929
Shuey v US 92 US 73 (1875) (persuasive judgement only, not binding)
Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 All ER 149
Revocation of a Unilateral Offer
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] 2 All ER 557, CA
Luxor v Cooper [1941] 1 All ER 33, HL
Lapse of time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Exch 109
Death of the offeree
Reynolds v Atherton (1921) 125 LT 690
Death of the offeror
Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H & C 249
This Contract Law lecture looks at the legal theories of acceptance. This Contract Law lecture dives thoroughly into an acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer. Not all transactions lend themselves to an easy analysis in terms of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’. Yet the court will always examine the communication between the parties to discover whether, at any one time, one party may be deemed to have assented to all the terms, express and implied, of a firm offer by the other party. An assent which is qualified in any way does not take effect as an acceptance.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you will know:
the constituents of a valid acceptance;
the rules in relation to communication of acceptance;
the exceptions to the general rule that acceptance must be communicated;
how to apply the rules relating to offer and acceptance to problem situations.
Cases
Silence is not acceptance
Felthouse v Bindley (1863) 142 ER 1037, Exch Ch
Specific method of acceptance
Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271, Exch.Ch.
Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial General Investments [1969] 3 All ER 1593
Acceptance can be by conduct
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 666
The Battle of the Forms
Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex Cell O Corporation ltd [1979] WLR 401
The Postal Rule
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 ExD 216
Communication of Acceptance
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
When is acceptance communicated?
Entores v Miles Far East Company [1955] 2 QB 327
Revocation of offer
Routledge v Grant (1828) 130 ER 920, Best CJ
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5CPD 344
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2ChD 463
The Brimnes [1975] QB 929
Shuey v US 92 US 73 (1875) (persuasive judgement only, not binding)
Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 All ER 149
Revocation of a Unilateral Offer
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] 2 All ER 557, CA
Luxor v Cooper [1941] 1 All ER 33, HL
Lapse of time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Exch 109
Death of the offeree
Reynolds v Atherton (1921) 125 LT 690
Death of the offeror
Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H & C 249
This Contract Law lecture looks at the legal theories of acceptance. This Contract Law lecture dives thoroughly into an acceptance must be unqualified and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer. Not all transactions lend themselves to an easy analysis in terms of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’. Yet the court will always examine the communication between the parties to discover whether, at any one time, one party may be deemed to have assented to all the terms, express and implied, of a firm offer by the other party. An assent which is qualified in any way does not take effect as an acceptance.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you will know:
the constituents of a valid acceptance;
the rules in relation to communication of acceptance;
the exceptions to the general rule that acceptance must be communicated;
how to apply the rules relating to offer and acceptance to problem situations.
Cases
Silence is not acceptance
Felthouse v Bindley (1863) 142 ER 1037, Exch Ch
Specific method of acceptance
Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271, Exch.Ch.
Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial General Investments [1969] 3 All ER 1593
Acceptance can be by conduct
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 666
The Battle of the Forms
Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex Cell O Corporation ltd [1979] WLR 401
The Postal Rule
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 ExD 216
Communication of Acceptance
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
When is acceptance communicated?
Entores v Miles Far East Company [1955] 2 QB 327
Revocation of offer
Routledge v Grant (1828) 130 ER 920, Best CJ
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5CPD 344
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2ChD 463
The Brimnes [1975] QB 929
Shuey v US 92 US 73 (1875) (persuasive judgement only, not binding)
Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 All ER 149
Revocation of a Unilateral Offer
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] 2 All ER 557, CA
Luxor v Cooper [1941] 1 All ER 33, HL
Lapse of time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Exch 109
Death of the offeree
Reynolds v Atherton (1921) 125 LT 690
Death of the offeror
Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H & C 249