Case You are expected to have an understanding of the outcome of each of the cases below, to help you argue the legal principles In Weeks 1 2 you will be provided with the legal MAIN CORE principles i[.]
Case You are expected to have an understanding of the outcome of each of the cases below, to help you argue the legal principles In Weeks 1-2 you will be provided with the legal MAIN CORE principles in the table From Weeks 3-11, you are expected to identify these principles YOURSELF in your reading Principle An offer can only exist if there is a firm promise to or to refrain from doing something The mere supplying of information, whether in response to a request or otherwise, is not an offer to deal A mere display of goods for sale at marked prices is generally regarded as an invitation to treat, not an offer Relevant cases Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] All ER 482 Fisher v Bell [1961] QB 394 Advertisements are usually regarded as invitations to treat Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] AC 325 It is possible for a statement not directed to any specific group of acceptors to be an 'offer to the world at large' Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] QB 256 Offers must set out the means by which it can be accepted Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] VSC 42 Once the acceptor has become aware of the offer, it can be accepted and the acceptor’s motive for accepting it is immaterial Williams v Carwardine (1833) Car & P 566 The existence of the offer must be in the offeree’s mind at the time of purported acceptance and the 'acceptance' must be both in response to and as a result of the offeree’s knowledge of the offer R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 Exaggerated statements that no reasonable person would believe, known as 'puff', are not binding on the party making them and not Leonard v Pepsico Inc 88 F Supp 2d (SDNY 1999) Principle Relevant cases give the other party any grounds on which to seek a remedy The offeror’s entitlement to revoke is absolute Routledge v Grant [1828] Bing 653 Any revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree before it becomes effective Until the offeree becomes aware of the revocation, he or she can accept the offer and any such acceptance will create a valid and binding contract Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) CPD 344 Only if the promisee has paid to keep the offer open or if the promise to keep it open has been made by deed will the offeror not be able to withdraw it This is a new and quite separate contractual obligation to keep the offer open called an 'option' Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 A counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer and a substitution of a new offer for it The counter-offer destroys the original offer and, thereafter, it cannot be accepted Hyde v Wrench (1840) Beav 334 A mere inquiry is not an acceptance, but neither is it a counter-offer or rejection It has an entirely neutral effect on the offer, and when the offeror replies, the offeree still has the option of accepting or rejecting Stevenson v McLean (1880) QBD 346 Where firms have their own preprinted purchase order forms and shipping vouchers or delivery dockets with terms under which the orders are sent or received, each set of terms is considered a counter-offer and 'the set submitted last' takes precedence Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex Cell O Corp(England) Ltd [1979] WLR 401 Where no time limit is stipulated, the offer must still be accepted within a 'reasonable time' Once that reasonable time expires, the offer automatically comes to an end Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR Ex 109 If you haven't already, make sure to review all assessments for this unit Some key things to note: The three assessments cover material from the themes within the unit You are strongly advised to work progressively on all assessments throughout the teaching period Participating in the weekly discussion activities will support you as you prepare for each assessment Ensure that you take notes on the cases from each week to help you work towards the relevant assessment tasks Cases You are expected to have an understanding of the outcome of each of the cases below, to help you argue the legal principles In weeks 1-2 you will be provided with the legal principles in the table From weeks 3-11, you are expected to identify these principles yourself in your reading Principle Relevant cases In determining what constitutes a reasonable time, at least two considerations are important: a the nature of the subject matter of the contract (and, in particular, whether it was of a wasting nature); and b the means used to communicate the offer (the more urgent the means used, the more reasonable it would be to presume that a rapid reply was required) Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial & General Investments Ltd [197 0] WLR 241 Acceptance can occur through conduct Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) App Cas 666 The offer must be present in the mind of the “acceptor” when the “acceptance” occurs or there is no true acceptance (that is, the act of acceptance must have been in response to, and as a result of, the offer) R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 An acceptance can only be communicated by the offeree or by an agent duly appointed for that purpose Until the offeror becomes aware of the acceptance, the acceptor is not bound Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 The offeror cannot stipulate that silence (such as not actively declining the offer) is a means of acceptance Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 The postal rule states that where the parties contemplate acceptance by mail, acceptance will be complete as soon as the letter is properly posted Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 The postal rule specifically applies to acceptances by Entores Ltd v Myles Principle Relevant cases mail and by telegram For other forms of communication, the general rule applies and acceptance occurs when and where the offeror receives the communication This includes acceptances by telephone, telex, teleprinter, facsimile machine and other forms of instantaneous or nearinstantaneous communication Far East Corporation [1955] QB 327 Where the postal rule or a “deemed acceptance” provision applies, a posted acceptance will be effective, even if it becomes lost, is never delivered or is abnormally delayed Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879) Ex D 216 The offeror can negate the postal rule by requiring actual communication instead of the constructive communication, either by expressly stipulating that they must receive the acceptance for it to become effective or by implication where it's clear that uncommunicated acceptance was not intended Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] All ER 161 If money is contributed as part of expense sharing, there is still no contract unless there is evidence of intention to create a legally binding contract Coward v Motor Insurers Bureau [1963] QB 259 Agreements between spouses are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences Domestic agreements between spouses are outside the realm of contract altogether Links to an external site.Balfour v Balfour [1919] KB 571 It is possible for a spouses to create a binding contract, for example as part of a separation arrangement Merritt v Merritt [1970] All ER 760 Where adult members of a family other than husband and wife share a household, the financial arrangements which they make may be intended to have contractual effect Riches v Hogben (1986) Qd R 315 Principle Relevant cases Ermogenous v Greek In commercial agreements, it is presumed the parties Orthodox intend to create legal relations However, if the parties Community(2002) 209 CLR 95 expressly deny intention by stating that negotiations are ‘subject to contract’ or that any agreement is to be Rose & Frank Co v ‘binding in honour only’ then there is no contract Crompton Bros [1923] KB 261 An agreement between persons who share a household, but which has nothing to with the management of the household, will probably be intended to be legally binding Simpkins v Pays [1955] WLR 975 If the act put forward as consideration was performed Eastwood v before any promise of reward was made, it is not valid Kenyon (1840) 113 consideration ER 482 As long as some value is given, consideration need not Thomas v be ‘adequate’ (that is, be of equal or greater value to Thomas (1842) QB the promise) There is no remedy for someone who 234 makes a bad bargain Forbearance (a promise not to something that the promisee was entitled to or not exercising a present right at the request of the promisor) can constitute good consideration Dunton v Dunton (1892) 18 VLR 114 Cases You are expected to have an understanding of the outcome of each of the cases below, to help you argue the legal principles In Weeks 3-11, you are expected to identify the legal principles that these cases relate to in your reading and complete the table for your study notes as modelled in weeks 12 Principle Relevant cases Textbook section Mercantile Bank of Sydney v 4.3 Taylor (1891) 12 LR (NSW) 252 Van Den Esschert v Chappell [19 60] WAR 114 4.8 De Lassalle v Guildford [19 4.14 01] KB 215 Hoyts Pty Ltd v Spencer (191 4.15 9) 27 CLR 133 JJ Savage & Sons v Blakney (197 4.17 0) 44 ALJR 123 http://www.e-l awresources.co Routledge v uk/Routledge-vMcKay [1954] Mackay.phpLink All ER 855 s to an external site Oscar Chess v 4.12 Principle Relevant cases Textbook section Williams [195 7] All ER 325 [PDF, 17KB] Dick Bentley Productions Pty Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Pty Ltd [1965] WLR 623 4.12 Ellul v Oakes [1972] 4.12 SASR 337 BP Refinery (Westernport ) Pty Ltd v Shire of 4.34 Hastings (19 77) 180 CLR 266 L’Estrange v Graucob [193 4] KB 4.28 394 Links to an external site Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52 http://classic.au stlii.edu.au/au/jo urnals/UNELawJ l/2005/9.pdfLin ks to an external site Curtis v 4.29 Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] KB 805 Links Principle Relevant cases Textbook section to an external site (Clarke 2010) Le Mans Grand Prix Circuits Pty Ltd v Iliadis [1998] VR 649 Class Session Discussion Clarke, B., Kapnoullas, S., When is a signed document contractual? Taking the 'Fun' out of 'Funfair' [2001] QUTLawJJI (http://classic.aus t lii.edu.au/au/journ als /QUTLawJJl/2001/ 4.htmLinks to an ext ernal site.)