Acceptance in unilateral contract at what time is acceptance made in unilateral contract (unilateral offer offer made by offeror in response

se to an act of the offeree..) the point where the act is said to correspond with the offer and is communicated by the offeror then the acceptance is valid there is a Problem though: working on basis that acceptance must be communicated to offeror: how does offeror know that they have been communicated it? tried to resolve this through: rrington v rrington: father buys house for !"#$ and takes mortgage of "##$ % his son and daughterinlaw move in that house% father says to so: if u pay off mortgage u can have the house. before the couple manages to pay off the mortgage the father dies house is passed on to personal representatives (some specific meaning &' &())). *uestion for court is: does the house belong to estate or the son and daughterinlaw it is only for the son if there is a binding contract between father and son. &ourt said that it wasn+t possible for personal representatives to stop the contract it was already formed court says this is a unilateral offer by the father, which was accepted by son once they started repaying mortgage once they moved in. -otes: .. this was a unilateral offer even though both parties face to face and dealing with each other /. once performance started on the act then that+s it and that is when acceptance is effective. 0ricky: u need to decide what performance is re*uired under unilateral offer look at 1u2or case: Luxor: defendant agrees with claimant that if defendant introduces purchase of / cinemas then the claimant will get a commission. claimant here introduces purchases but defendant refuses to go ahead *uestion is: can claimant get commission? court said: this is unilateral offer (an offer that re*uired an act in response): *uestion is has claimant undertaken an act? the court construed the necessary act re*uired by the claimant very widely they argued that what was re*uired was for claimant to introduce the purchaser this meant for court that it means to go fully through and really buy the if they didn+t buy it then act was incomplete and it was possible for defendant not to pay the commission. key here is: 3purchaser4 also look at Daulia v four milibank: if contract if 5 do this then u will get that: so for court its when the full obligation is complied with that acceptance will be deemed effective. At what point in negotiations can offeror withdraw offer? at what point does the offer cease to be effective? .. &oncept of re6ection: 5t is possible for offeree to re6ect the offer and this terminates the offer. e.g. 'yde v 7rench (when counter offer made original offer killed off has effect of re6ecting an offer)

 2. revocation: most important category case of payne v cave: defendant bids in an auction and is bidding for claimants goods but before auctioneer puts hammer down the defendant takes bid back is that attempted revocation of the offer valid? &ourt said: every bid in auction is an offer this means it can be withdrawn at any point before acceptance. and acceptance in auction takes place when auctioneer puts hammer down. in this case of payne: withdrawal was effective offer revoked before acceptance. 0his shows any offer can be revoked or withdrawn at any point before it is accepted. there are *ualifications to it: o 8outledge: defendant offers to buy lease from claimant and says to claimant: 9a definitive answer to be given in : weeks+. about a month before this deadline the defendant withdraws the offer but claimant says no we are going to accept it: so *uestion for court is: if u set a deadline by which acceptance must be made are u going to be held to that deadline or can u withdraw the offer before then? court said: no u r not held to the deadline u can withdraw ur offer at any point before acceptance. if acceptance had been done in that time period it is too late. 2ception to this is if there is a collateral contract operating on the side of the contract ('arvella and black.. case). o ne2t to think about the postal rule: ;yrne case: does postal rule apply to revocation? if u send letter to revoke a offer is it valid if u put the letter in the letterbo2 or is it only valid once it has arrived with the offeree. &ourt said here: postal rule doesn+t apply to revocation. only thing that matters is that letter arrives with offeree in other words revocation must be communicated to offeree. o &ase of 0he ;rimnes: shipping case: at what point did revocation take place? facts of case: revocation had been sent by fa2 and it had arrived during the office hours of the offeror but it wasn+t read until much later. *uestion is: does revocation take effect at the point at which it was sent or when it was read? court said when it arrived, provided it arrives in office hours. o ne2t point to think: to whom does revocation need to be made? case in <ickinson v dodds: our defendant offers to sell land to claimant and said he would leave offer open until =riday lunchtime. (similar to routledge) difference here is: claimant decides to accept the offer at early morning of the deadline. however before he can actually accept the offer he hears from a friend that the defendant has sold the land to somebody else. however, *uestion is: was offer revoked before claimant accepted it? &ourt said: yes it was because it actually doesn+t matter who tells u that the offer is withdrawn as long as it is communicated to u. >. lapse of time: offer open a long time and it is deemed to lapse: see 8amsgate victoria case

Additional notes:

.) its important to remember: u don+t need a contract to be written so that it is valid only e2ception to this is contract for land. /) u have to have the capacity to contract (those over .:) being drunk when to contract is not a good reason to be not being able to contract. '? for >rd lecture: -=?8& @ -0 when is a contract enforceable? &ourts draw the line through looking at / doctrines .) consideration /) intention to create legal relations % when u have offer and acceptance there is a binding agreement but when is it enforceable? is there a consideration that is passed between the parties? .) &?-A5< 8A05?idea here is that every promise that+s made to do something must e*ually have 3payment4 for the promise. (e.g. selling book promise do sth in return). 8eason for that is court will only enforce bargains, not bear promises. that payment is called consideration. if 5 promise to do sth u must provide consideration to me for this promise. if there is no consideration the promise is not binding. classic def of consideration: &urrie v @isa (shows def). court said that a valuable consideration is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party and a forbearance, detriment or loss to other. one benefits the other loses. u have to give consideration: what can that be? it has to be something of value, it doesn+t have to be money. courts only want to enforce bargains and they use the idea of benefit and detriment to see what is really enforceable. ?ver time courts have changed their view on what is a bargain.

e.g. Edmunds v Lawson: claimant is pupil barrister and she gets offered a pupillage at a chamber but unfortunately it is unfunded (no money involved). she brings a claim to the tribunal arguiung she is entitled to minimum wage. important point here is: she is only entitled to minimum wage if she is a employee to barrister and in order to be that she has to show there is an enforceable contract between them. barrister argues there is no consideration in the contract because there is no detriment. he says he gets benefit of her work and she is getting benefit of training there is no detriment here. court says here: we are more interested in bargain: court says not only is he getting benefit of her work but chambers themselves benefit too she is getting benefit of training, access to the courts and u can see that in value. they didn+t look at benefit and detriment but only at bargain. (we have traditional idea of bargain which is traditionally benefit and detriment. but now courts looking at bargain itself not only on benefit and detriment.) 7' - @BA0 &?-A5< 8A05?- ; C5D -? it must be given in e2change for a promise it must be in response to the promise. the consideration cant be given before the promise is made. if its given before then its called 9past consideration+ but this one isn+t good enough. e.g. eastwood v Kenyon: claimant is guardian of child (Aarah). sarah+s dad died but unfortunately dad died with insufficient money to care for her. basically guardian doesn+t have enough money and goes and gets loan to maintain sarah. sarah agrees to pay back the money once she comes of age and she starts paying it back. she then marries the defendant and the defendant agrees to continue to paying the money back and despite agreeing to pay the money back he fails to do so and our claimant sues him for breach of contract. *uestion for court is: can claimant enforce the promise made by the defendant (promise to pay the money). court said no, our claimant cannot enforce the promise made by the defendant because the consideration (taking care of Aarah) given by the plaintiffE the claimant comes too early. it (consideration) is not in e2change for the pomise. /nd way of how consideration can be passed comes in case 8ascorla v 0homas: claimant buys horse for >#$ from defendant. defendant then later gives oral promise to the claimant that the 3horse is free from vice4. claimant then brings a claim against defendant because the horse is unsound (broken leg or sth like that). our claimant can only succeed in court if the promise (horse is vice) is enforceable in court. &ourt says this is not enforceable because there is no consideration. court said in this case there are / promises. .st promise is to sell the course. the consideration for that is the money (>#$). /nd promise: horse is free from vice. no consideration for this promise nothing offered in return for that promise. the >#$ only relates to .st promise. Ao court argued consideration can be passed in different way which is u can only use one consideration for one promise. u cant use one consideration for / promises, because the consideration has to be given in e2change for a promise.

summary: if it predates or I want to use one consideration for 2 promises. then not a valid consideration 8e @cArdle: say 9 this is in consideration for this promise 9 this doesn+t count because what matters is that u give something in e2change and what u give in e2change. 2ception: .) if act done in e2pectation of reward see: 1ampleigh v ;raithwait: ;raithwait allegedly murdered somebody and so was in prison and asked lampleigh to write to king to get a pardon from the king. so lampleigh goes and writes to the king for a pardon and on lampleigh+s return braithwait says to lampleigh: in consideration of ur service 5 will pay u .##$, which he doesn+t do. is this promise enforceable? court said: yes this promise is enforceable. normally this wouldn+t be right. coF consideration predates earlier. but court said that if its clear that the only reason people do an act is in e2pectation for a reward even if the promise is made later then it is enough to consider this as an enforceable promise. 7hy else would this guy ask for pardon if not e2pecting a reward? /) implied that there is reward 8e &aseys patents: letter sent to manager of certain patent rights in a company saying 9 in consideration of ur work we will grant u one of the patents+. unfortunately the patents were never transferred to the manager. *uestion is: is this agreement enforceable? court said yes it is. court said that it was clearly understood by both parties that the manager would get a reward, why else was he working? it would be implied that there is a reward >) later promise is enforceable if consideration given at that time basically consideration and promise made at same time see pao on v lau yiu long: parties agree to e2change shares (.st agreement) sales agreement. now to prevent a decrease in the value of the shares pao on also agreed not to sell :#G of their shares for a year after that (agreement nr. /). >rd agreement: 1au long agreed to protect pao on from any fall in value below /."#H each and this protection takes the form of buy back (if they fall below /."# lau is contracted to buy shares back from pao on). agreement made in a way that 0here was automatic buy back of shares after a year. but pao on then said what if shares increase? we don+t want to be locked in in this buy back? 7e want different agreement) so the >rd agreement is replaced by guarantee sth sth (if there is a drop in value in the shares then lao will compensate pao on for that loss but they wont buy the shares themselves a sort of indemnity agreement). *uestion is: is the replacement >rd agreement enforceable? court said: yes it is. because the >rd replacement agreement: the way the buy back was working was to protect value in future because it took effect as future promise it would forward date the consideration and u can forward it to the indemnity agreement so its ok.

7'? @BA0 C5D &?-A5< 8A05?-? case: tweddle v Atkinson: marriage and peoples fathers go in contract they agree they both provide money to the guy who 6ust married. but girl+s dad doesn+t hold up the contract so the husband wants to sue the girl+s dad. can he sue him? is there any consideration from the husband to the father? court said: the consideration must move from the promise (the husband) but it doesn+t have to go to promisor (dad) it can go somewhere else. court says the consideration moves towards the girl she is the detriment as he marries her. and court says the marriage is consideration for the money promise. &?-& P0 ?= DA1B value: it must be of economic value in eyes of law. there are set of guiding principles of what courts regarded as economic value. easy thing is money money is always good consideration. but problems occur when something other than money is offered.