No further steps anticipated "I accept" will form a contract

Kills 1st offer

Advertisements, shop displays Auctions, sale of land
Response that varies terms of the offer
Means original offer killed Counter-Offer Generally not offers
Counter-offer capable of acceptance Advertisements Wine merchant, wine list
Graingers & Sons v Gough 1896
Hyde v Wrench 1840 Not an offer to supply unlimited amount
Other Responses Intention
Examples
Kills offer Rejection Pharmaceutical Soc Goods offered by customer at counter, not by shop on shelves
of GB v Boots '53
Offer still stands Shop Herschell L, p.35
displays
Merely getting clarification of offer terms may not kill the offer Request for info Lord Parker CJ, p.35
Fisher v Bell '61
Stevenson v McLean 1880 Display w/ price in window = merely invitation to treat
Has Offer been made
Offer
Offeree must know of the offer
Offer can only be accepted if it hasn't ended
R v Clarke '27 Gave info to save self, unaware of reward
Offer only open for acceptance for a reasonable time
Lapse of time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore 1866 Offer not in contemplation when acceptance made Williams v Carwardine 1833
But motives irrelevant
Communicated Dying woman gives info to clear conscience
Death of either party will usually bring offer to an end Death
Other Ways Offer Can End Causal link betwn offer and acceptance Identical offers cross in post No agreement
Offord v Davies 1862 Generally offer can be revoked any time before acceptance has been communicated necessary for agreement Tinn v Hoffman 1873
Cross-offers
Blackburn J, p.36
Byrne v van Tienhoven 1880 Revocation must be communicated Revocation
Certain & complete Contains express terms of the contract
Dickinson v Dodds 1876 Communication may be by 3rd party
Counter-offer Rejection Request for info
If you do this, I promise that What responses can be made Acceptance
Acceptance and performance simultaneous Jones v Daniel 1894
Intro Mirror-image rule Without adding anything new
Only the offeror is bound Brogden v Metropolitan Ry 1877
When performance has happened, offeree has nothing left to do
Communication method may be expressly / impliedly dictated by offeror
Rewards, sometimes tenders Denning L
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 What is it Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl '83, HL Affirms Entores v Miles Far Eastern Co. Ltd '55 Communication = Knowledge
Bowerman v Assoc. of British Travel Agents '96 Instantaneous telecom equivalent to face-to-face
Usually invitation to treat - danger of multiple acceptances
Silence isn't acceptance Belthouse v Bindley 1862
Difficulty overcome if in unilateral form (Carlill) Adverts
Consider rewards - usually only 1 acceptance is possible Offer accepted by conduct provided that such conduct Brogden v Metropolitan Ry 1877
can only be explained by acceptance of offer
Usually not offers cf Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fry 2001
Can at least create some rights sending no more communications
Issues Communication One side deemed to have accepted 'last shot' by:
Can be if unilateral element Last shot rule
and acting as if a contract
Unilateral offer can result in bilateral contract
Intention to 1. Agreement Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-O Corp '71
make offer Denning holistic approach Look at all interactions
Usually invitations to treat 07/01/2007 - v10 Conduct - Battle of the forms This analysis not supported
Spencer v Harding 1870
Harvela Investments v Can analyse as unilateral Tenders
2 people invited to bid Conduct must be such that it's clear offeree intended to accept
Royal Trust Co of and then responses
Canada '85 intended to be offers Important Mere performance doesn't necessarily lead to there being acceptance by conduct
One's bid: "101,000 higher than other side" Cases
Referential bid not allowed, defeated purpose BSC v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering '84

No contract Restitution
Or at least unilateral aspect may
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council '90 control decisonmaking process
Problem of non-instantaneous communication Acceptance deemed communicated on posting
Intro
Walking to York Rule of convenience Can be expressly or impliedly overridden in offer
Stopping after they've started performing Unilateral
Great Northern Ry v Witham 1873 Normal rule: can revoke until communication of acceptance Contracts Adams v Lindsell 1818
Brett J
Acceptance Can justify risk of being unknowingly bound on Offeror as Offeror controls process
Can Revoke - Luxor The Problem Household Fire & Carriage v Grant 1879
Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper '41
The Rule Offeror can expressly/impliedly require notice of
Denning LJ Errington v Errington '52 acceptance to be communicated in order to be effective
The Law Holwell Securities v Hughes '74
Can't Revoke - Errington, Daulia
Goff LJ Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees '78 Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v
Provided the Offeror is clear in so doing Commercial & General Investments '70 Buckley J, p.41
Can Revoke
Rule that right to revoke lost Accepting at Distance Letters take time - possible for offeree to overtake acceptance letter by faster means of communication
Theories The Postal Rule Problem of Withdrawal Against: Why should rule to protect Offeree punish Offeree if Offeror not harmed
Implied 2nd unilateral offer Should strict postal rule apply to say there's a contract
of Acceptance Letter
Quantum Meruit For: Not applying Postal Rule gives Offeree an effective option

Option that doesn't work There's no binding authority in UK, other case law is divided
Acceptance on commencement Revocation of
Unilateral Offers Fax, e-mail, telex
Errington v Errington
No way to revoke after commencement of performance as ROL Denning L
Daulia v Four Millbank Theories of
Revocation Entores v Miles Far Communication = Need to establish that other party received communication
First offer - promise for full performance Instantaneous Eastern Co. Ltd '55 Knowledge
Communication Issue Instantaneous telecom equivalent to face-to-face
2nd offer - implied that offeror will promise to keep 1st Ways that
offer open once offer has commenced performance Double offer might work So, to verify - call them up, or e-mail/fax again - check they rec'd it
Offeror can revoke but then is in breach of 2nd contract
No authority
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool BC '90 If Offeror sends by fax/e-mail and Offeree accepts by post, what to do
This work is based on the lectures of John Halladay Try using Entores
Allow offeror to revoke but award offeree reasonable Quantum Meruit and is licensed under the Creative Commons Parties thinking differently
value for time/effort up to time of revocation Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To Result is no Mirror-Image acceptance
Sometimes called cross-purpose mistake Objective observer would see difference
view a copy of this license, visit
Method of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
What if offer advertised Communicating Mutual Mistake So no contract ever formed
How to guarantee the revocation reached Revocation
Wood v Smith 1858
Shuey v US 1875 minds of ALL people who read original offer
Raffles v Wichelhause 1864

C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\Desktop\Contract\2003\mmp\Agreement.mmp